The Truth Behind The Polls Paints a Different Picture

1. 61

   Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

   From the Washington Post -
   
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03719.html
   
   Noteable quote if you don't click in the link...
   
   "Only 40 percent supported the bills passed by Congress, while 57 percent opposed them. But in a crucial follow-up question, a net of 10 percent of all Americans opposed the bill because it was "not liberal enough." If one makes the reasonable assumption that these people are far more likely to side with supporters of the president's plan than with Republicans who are obstructing it, the results would show that 50 percent favor the plan or want a broader one, while only 45 percent oppose the plan.
   
   Similarly, a more recent poll by Ipsos showed that among the 47 percent who initially said they "opposed health care," more than a third of opponents said they "favor" reform overall but think the current plan doesn't go "far enough." Shifting these people to the group in "favor of reform" would reduce opposition to current reforms to under 40 percent. "

   replyreport
2. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   Good spin. Most dems support the plan, while most reps oppose. The people who think the plan isn't liberal enough are mostly democrats. With that in mind, the key is the independents. They oppose the plan 64-32%.
   
   http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … are_reform
   
   Polls are pretty murky, actually. I think it's more telling that Scott Brown was elected in BLUE Massachusetts after running as the 41st vote against HC.
   
   I talked to a staunch dem yesterday about this. She liked the bill at first, but she feels it's been so tainted with the bribes, add-ons, and unfair perks for certain groups that it's not worth passing now.
   
   I support parts of the plan and oppose others. I hope we like it when it's put into effect - because it will pass.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Don't say that habee. I can't see any reason why I should go to jail because I neither want nor need health insurance.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Oh thank goodness. I won't be in jail alone. Yay!

         replyreport
   2. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Rasmussen Reports is a legitimate polling organization, but it leans toward the conservative side. Rasumssen was a consultant to Bush's election campaign. and Rasmussen has been criticized for the wording of its poll questionas:
      
      Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[15] Examples of Rasmussen's questions with wording issues include:
      
          * Agree or Disagree: "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high."[16]
          * Do you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats?[17]
          * Suppose that Democrats agreed on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress. Should the Democrats pass that bill or should they change the bill to win support from a reasonable number of Republicans?[18]
          * Do you agree or disagree with the following statement... it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money?[19]

      replyreport
3. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   Good, Madame! You're just the kind of person this needs in order to be successful - people who don't use insurance to balance out those who will use it but can't or don't want to pay for it.

   replyreport
4. 68

   wyanjenposted 14 years ago

   Morning everybody
   
   I usually stay away from this subject. Both points of view are valid here, so I don't feel the need to jump in
   
   I'm not an independent, I'm a very liberal dem. I'm sure if you follow this you know that it was Rep. Stupak who stirred up the abortion component - I did campaign work for him back in the 90s and I'm still close with some of his Michigan staff. I contacted his regional manager about this mess because I actually had an anti-Stupak ad on my profile page here at HP, right under my damn photo. Pissed me off.
   
   I'm deff pro-choice but I don't support federal funding. This is the type of compromise needed for the plan IMO.
   Anyway, to this thread: It's true that many opposers are standing against components of it but not the actual bill itself. It's the lack of insurance and the prohibitive expense that need to be addressed. The rest can be dealt with.
   I know - first hand - that the current health system is allowing people to die simply because they cannot pay. It tears my heart out and leaves me feeling like our country is not even America, if you know what I mean. This is not supposed to happen in our nation.
   Health care should not be a premium lifestyle choice that is only available to those who can afford it.
   
   An imperfect health care bill is good enough for me at this point. Anything that could help stop this is a step forward. A funeral should not be a treatment option.

   replyreport
5. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   Many agree with you, Madame, including some Constitutional lawyers. Even the Congressional Research Center said this in the NY Times:
   
   CRS: Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the commerce clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.
   
   When this bill is passed, the Supreme Court will have to decide if forcing citizens to purchase health insurance is Constitutional or not. I'm sure it will be challenged.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "When this bill is passed, the Supreme Court will have to decide if forcing citizens to purchase health insurance is Constitutional or not. I'm sure it will be challenged."
      
      Ya' got that right.. And that's the forum where it should be decided.

      replyreport
6. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   As I stated, MR. Deeds, polls are murky. Rasmussen, however, was spot-on with the 2008 election. If so many people want this bill, how did Scott Brown get elected?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Scott Brown got elected by convinving the peopleof Mass that he was going to represent them. Mass HAS universal health care which I understand he's not out to repeal.  The Democrats put up a poor candidate who ran a dismal campaign. Though I disagree with Brown on issues, the better candidate won. I disagree that the results are an indication of how Mass feels about health care - look at their system...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You really don't get it.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, maybe it was also the horny women turned on by Brown's nude pic in Cosmopolitan or his pink leather shorts.

            replyreport
7. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   Okay, Mr. Deeds, if Rasmussen is too "right" for you, here's the CNN poll on how independents feel:
   
   52% - scrap the bill and start over
   27% - stop all legislation on HC
   18% - pass the bill
   
   In comparison the the CNN poll, Rasmussen appears to be leaning left!

   replyreport
8. 83

   donotfearposted 14 years ago

   I don't want to be told what health plan I can have. I want to choose. It's my right as an American. The government has no right to make my health care decisions.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yep.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The goverment is NOT making health care decisions. No one from the government stands bettween you and your doctor. Period.
      
      No one is telling you what health care plan you can have.  There will be minimum standards for how health care contracts can be written. The health  department does not tell restaurants what they can offer or how to cook, but they deny a restaurant the right to endanger public health with what they sell. You can select from theoptions that meet a minimum - some argue that there should be NO minimum, that anyone can read a contract and understand the impications of caps or exclusions.
      
      Either you have bought into the lies - or you are deliberately spreading them. There's room for a legitimate debate and an honest difference of opinion on reform. But the discussion has degenerated to where I am spending 70% of my time refuting things that are not true - whch means only 30% of my time in 'legitimate' discussion. This is no accident - conservatives want the argument in never-nevr land so people will throw up their hands in disgust and quit. To some degree, it's worked.
      
      Some of us have our eye onthe ball - 45 million Americans without insurance - 45,000 per year who die for the lack of it.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         There are other ways to take care of the problems with health care than to trample the freedom of this country's citizens. There is obviously QUITE ENOUGH doubt about THIS particular bill to even consider passing it, and yet officials are determined to have their way.
         
         And what is the DEAL with all the extra, unrelated CRAP that keeps getting added to it??

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You mean the freedom of the 40 million people who have no health insurance?
            
            "Another reason for pride, that of being a citizen!  For the poor,
            citizenship consists of supporting and sustaining the power and
            idleness of the rich.  They must work for those goals before the
            majestic equality of the laws, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."
            
            Anatole France

            replyreport
            1. 65

               TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Man, I AM one of the 40 million poor Americans who doesn't have health insurance. So yeah, I guess I do mean ME.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Some day you may wish you had it and not be able to get it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Perhaps. But even if that's the case, I am not willing to see this country and the system abused for it.
                     
                     We need to come up with solutions that we can agree on, that are not swayed by lobbyists with money, that are not shoved through legislation with heavy-handed tactics, that actually address the problem of HEALTH, and that are not full of unnecessary and unrelated bribes (what other people call "pork").

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        The "lobbyists with money" are the insurance and drug companies opposing health reform with lies about "death panels," cuts in Medicare and saying that there will be a huge cost when actually the CBO predicts a savings to American tax payers. Without reform costs are sure to keep increasing. The "bribes" to Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana have been stripped from the proposal. They were a big mistake. Both are now opposing the public option supported by 41 senators.

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           I didn't say we didn't need reform. I said THIS bill may not be the way to go.

                           replyreport
                           1. 69

                              Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              The bill isn't perfect, but it's a big improvement. More people will be covered including those with preexisting conditions, and it contains a number of features that will improve care and reduce costs.

                              replyreport
                              1. 65

                                 TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 I'm glad you're so sure about that. But the point is that it seems that MANY others in this country are not--more than enough to indicate a high level of doubt. THAT is my main issue with the thing. I know we need reform, but we do not need to screw the system or force it to get it.
                                 
                                 ETA: BTW Ralph, it's always good to chat with you. You are generally more informed about this sort of thing than I am...I'll readily admit that. I've got to get off this 'durn' forum and get some grocery shopping done, but I've enjoyed this. Have a great day!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 69

                                    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    You, too!

                                    replyreport
                              2. 54

                                 Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 That 'preexisting conditions' part sure as hell won't reduce costs, and the 'you must buy or else' clause sure as hell isn't constitutional.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    Chief Justice TK.

                                    replyreport
                        2. 65

                           TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Hey, that's good to know about the bribes. Thanks.

                           replyreport
      2. 59

         JON EWALLposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Hubbers
         Doug Hughes says
         Some of us have our eye on the ball - 45 million Americans without insurance - 45,000 per year who die for the lack of it.
         Response
         I guess the administration has added in the 14.9 million that are unemployed and most surely are not paying healthcare premiums ?
         People aren't dying because they don't have healthcare, the issue is not about healthcare.
         
         The government is NOT making health care decisions. No one from the government stands between you and your doctor.  Period.
         Response
         For your information, Medicare does deny certain procedures and does Not Pay for procedures that the government deems unnecessary.
         Any government involvement in the life decisions of our citizens comes with strings attached, don't forget that.
         
         The issues are the rising cost of health reform insurance not healthcare.
         Today on a news program, a Democrat Congressman stating the democrat talking points stated ,''to do nothing is inexcusable ''.
         
         The president said '' we need to get more people paying in order to reduce insurance cost '' .
         If  what the president said is correct then why has Obama and the super majority  Democrat Congress not concentrating on , as  president Obama promised,jobs and fixing the economy.
         
         For the past 15 months, this congress has neglected to produce jobs but wasted taxpayer time and money on a bad   healthcare reform bill.
         People who have read the existing bill do not favor the bill in it's existing form.Until the bill is written ,scored by the CBO and given the people 72 hours to review the bill one must patiently wait before making a  sensible judgement.of the bill.
         
         We should be looking for an honest debate on all points of the bill when the democrats release it to congress.Let's try to put aside all the gimmicks that is going on behind closed doors for the time being.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            wyanjenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            With all due respect
            How does having a job cure a disease?
            
            I lost a friend who was working full time but could not get coverage. It goes without saying that I am not the only American who knows somebody who has died simply because they could not afford healthcare.
            Saying that people are not dying because they don't have healthcare is an ignorant argument. It is completely off base and out of touch with the reality.
            
            At which other point in history has it been the job of Congress to create employment? Are we a capitalist society, or aren't we?

            replyreport
9. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   My adult children don't want to be forced to buy health insurance, either. As for me, my policy will be taxed, while a union member with a similar policy won't be taxed. How, to any rational person, is this fair??
   
   I want all citizens to have health insurance if they want it. I don't want ins. companies to be able to drop or deny coverage for sick people. Everyone agrees on these points. Why couldn't we start here instead of the 2,000+ - page monstrosity that this has evolved into?
   
   I'm also worried about the cuts in Medicare. And I don't want my tax dollars funding abortions!

   replyreport
10. 0

    Madame Xposted 14 years ago

    Dr. Emanuel is a health policy advisor to President Obama and brother of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, he states:
    
    "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years".
    
    Wow. And here I thought it was ok for my mom to have healthcare.

    replyreport
11. 92

    habeeposted 14 years ago

    Several of Dr. Emanuel's comments are rather unsettling!

    replyreport
12. 59

    JON EWALLposted 14 years ago

    Hubbers
                A SPECIAL INVITATION TO THE HEALTHCARE DEBATE
    
    On Saturday 3/20/10 EXCLUSIVLY on Fox News cable at 10:00am to 12:00 ET time NO OTHER PLACE BUT FOX NEWS
    
    A special program regarding healthcare reform '' LIVE AND UNCUT '' direct from Washington , hosted by Neil Cavuto.
    
    Members of both parties will be interviewed.
    
    FOX NEWS   '' WE REPORT YOU DECIDE '' '' FAIR AND BALANCED ''
    
    Try not to miss the program, it's for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, Liberals and all Americans.
    I don't believe I missed anyone.
    Looking forward to comments.

    replyreport
13. 92

    habeeposted 14 years ago

    You're right, Jon. We should all wait to see the bill.
    
    And Mr. Deeds, not all the bribes have been stripped from the bill. Research it.

    replyreport