At one point, Hamsher claims that "76 percent" of Americans want the public option; and Shuster, in the wrap up, asks what's up with the Democrats, "they can't push through a public option that most of these people want"?
Behold more Democratic healthcare lies. Hamsher's referencing the data cited at her Firedoglake post yesterday, "Democratic “Infighting,” Or Keeping Blue Dogs From Selling Out Health Care?" That entry cites a June NBC/Wall Street Journal survey that found 76 percent agreeing it was important that health care reform include a "choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance."
Not only is that finding badly outdated, you can't stretch it to argue that 76 percent of the country wants "a public plan to compete with the private insurance industry, because they hate them and don't trust their health care to them," as does Hamsher at her post.
It's not just sneaky, it's a lie. Hamsher's citing two-month old polling data
Subsequent subsequent surveys have rounded out the picture quite a bit, and conservative activism has taken a toll on the administration's popular support.
For example, see Gallup's report from mid-July, "More Disapprove Than Approve of Obama on Healthcare." Also, in July, Rasmussen reported, "Cost, Not Universal Coverage, is Top Health Care Concern for Voters."
And a CNN poll out yesterday found that "eight out of 10 people are satisfied with their own health care and nearly three out of four are happy with their own insurance." Also, a 44 percent plurality agreed that Obama's "proposals would help other families in this country, but would not help you and your family." Note too, as today's Quinnipiac University National Poll indicates, 52 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the administration is handling health care reform.
The truth is that Democrats are desperate, and they'll do just about anything to try to win the battle over media-framing and public opinion.
Related: The Washington Post, "Senators Closer To Health Package: Bipartisan Talks On Reform Move Toward Center." See also, Pundit & Pundette, "Maybe They're Just Crazy?," and Ed Morrissey, "Say, Isn’t This Astroturfing?" (via Memeorandum).
12 comments:
Wow, Donald. Way to cherrypick those polls. Like the CNN poll you cite which says that 50% of those polled support Obama's plan, while only 45% oppose it. Of course, that was included in the second paragraph, so perhaps you missed it. And as the poll's details say, the number of those who support Obama's plan has only dropped 1 point since June; which clearly falls within the margin of error. The number of those who oppose it has stayed steady at 45%. So we still have the majority, while you remain in the minority.
You also missed that only "1 in 5" think Obama's plan won't help anyone. So over twice as many people think it'll help families than the number of those who don't think anyone will be helped. Plus, 74% of those polled agreed that it was "necessary to make major structural changes in the nation’s health care system in order to reduce health care costs." And seeing as how you guys have absolutely NO plan for doing this, it looks like we're the only game in town.
And of course, the reason so many people said that Obama's plan wouldn't help their family is because, DUH!, they already have insurance and this plan isn't MEANT to help them directly. I myself fully support Obama's plan, yet will continue to get insurance through my wife's employer. And that's exactly what the public option is for: People who don't already have insurance or are under-insured. But like you, my wife works for the state, so our insurance plan is adequate.
Of course, one big problem in all this is that Obama doesn't really HAVE a specific plan and is allowing Congress to write the legislation; which is how our system is supposed to work. And so it's a little difficult for people to support a plan that is still influx. But as long as Obama is committed to allowing people an option outside of the insurance companies, I'll be happy.
So you can cherrypick these numbers all you want, but it doesn't change the reality that people support Obama's plans, while the Ostrich Party continues to bury their heads and pretend there's no problem.
Obama bin-lyin, and so have his supporters.
Plus, 74% of those polled agreed that it was "necessary to make major structural changes in the nation’s health care system in order to reduce health care costs." And seeing as how you guys have absolutely NO plan for doing this, it looks like we're the only game in town.
Wrong, Biobrain ... from tort reform to opening up the tax benefits held by employers to everyone for the purchase of their own health insurance, alternatives have been proposed. They would provide many of the beneficial structural changes needed.
But the alternatives are not a statist solution ... which is the ONLY solution y'all will accept, and the ONLY one that gets media attention.
We also are ignored because, unlike you Brainiacs, we don't presume to be so omniscient as to present a top-down solution as the cure for the ills of all 300 million of us ... we think that it is most prudent to engage those 300 million in the problem-solving effort, as the primary decision-makers ... instead of authorizing a few Best and Brainiest make the decisions FOR them.
The ONLY reason you can take comfort that you will be keeping your insurance, is because your wife, and therefore you, will in all probability be EXEMPT from the Obamacare requirements as a government employee.
The rest of us don't have that exemption.
But just keep straining those gnats ... just like you do regarding that lil' ol' democracy known as Iraq.
Just like there, history will get your mind, er, brain right, "Luke".
Agitpreppie Shuster doesn't surprise me and Hamsher is beyond the pale after her CT fiasco against CT Dem Sen. Joe fizzled like her other projects [wonder how her book on crack/meth is coming along].
So CNN says Obama has lost 7 points in the last three months, and is more unpopular than GWB was BEFORE Sept. 11th, 2001.
I'd like to get ahold of whatever he's smoking in his ganja pipe.
Like the CNN poll you cite which says that 50% of those polled support Obama's plan, while only 45% oppose it.
The details also say the black population was oversampled. And since they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, the numbers will be skewed as well.
So over twice as many people think it'll help families than the number of those who don't think anyone will be helped.
This is, to me, rather meaningless. I suspect most people wouldn't claim that the plan would help no one. Most people don't think it will help them.
And seeing as how you guys have absolutely NO plan for doing this, it looks like we're the only game in town.
Wow, what a bold-faced lie.
And that's exactly what the public option is for: People who don't already have insurance or are under-insured.
You seem to want to ignore the point the opposition is making. There won't be a private option in time, if the current plan is enacted. Barney Frank said as much himself.
Rich - I'm not going to engage here on most of your arguments, as a proper response would be too long for this forum and would be ignored anyway (particularly your bogus idea that the government is going to take away anyone's insurance); but I just thought I'd correct you on one thing.
Your "300 million of us" thing is completely dumb. First off, about 27% of those are under the age of nineteen and are unlikely to add much to our problem solving abilities. And of the remaining 219 million, half of them WANT Obama to fix this instead of the population as a whole. Electing Obama and giving Dems both houses of Congress WAS their solution. So yes, I know, your 300 million versus the top-down government thing sounds good, but it just makes you look like a big goober to anyone with a brain. And again, Obama isn't taking away anyone's insurance and all the old folks will continue to use their top-down government Medicare, but whatever.
Oh, and keep pretending as if there was any evidence whatsoever that Saddam was a threat to us. In reality, we've looked through their files and found no sign of a threat, and that Saddam was really only worried about Iran and Israel; but whatever. Tell yourself what you need to tell yourself. And let me know how those democracies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are doing; now that you apparently think its our job to install democracy around the globe.
I remember just a decade ago when conservatives were completely AGAINST the idea of us policing the world, but I guess that was a pre-9/11 attitude. I myself think that capitalism is the answer to our problems and that we can sell our way to world peace, but that's just me. If you want to bomb our way to freedom, I doubt I can change your mind.
I want to see legislation that will include all natural cures that actually cure diseases instead of just treating them. There are 38 million Americans that spend money on all natural cures every year. There are 50 million uninsured Americans. I,personally, do not want health insurance unless there is an all natural option. All natural cures would reduce costs and actually cure diseases further reducing the costs of medical care. The other problem is that Obama has just made a deal with one of the devils of our healthcare industry, the drug industry. I am all for proper healthcare reform, but to guarantee any industry anything is dangerous. Industries need the option of failure, I guess this country does not believe that anymore, which is why we are in this economic mess now.
The details also say the black population was oversampled. And since they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, the numbers will be skewed as well.
DFS - While that's what it sounds like they did, that's not what oversampling means and they didn't overrepresent blacks in this poll. It's just a technique they use to make sure that smaller population groups are accurately polled, but they don't actually incorporate the extra people in the overall poll results.
Here's CNN's explanation, though you can find the same answer from other pollsters:
Occasionally we want to analyze the opinions of a group of people who are a small portion of the overall population. For example, there are too few African-Americans in a typical poll for us to be able to say how all African-Americans feel about the issues on that poll. To do so, we will make a special effort to contact extra African-Americans. That technique produces an "oversample" of African-Americans. The term comes from the fact that we wind up producing a sample of African Americans over and above those we have already interviewed as part of the regular sample of respondents.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/polling.FAQ.shtml#oversample
Here's another explanation, which I think is better:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/827746.aspx
So while the term "oversample" sounds nefarious, it's really just a way of ensuring that polls are more accurate within the smaller population groups. But it doesn't overrepresent those population groups. Hope that helps.
Oops! Forgot to check the links before I posted. Here's the CNN link and the MSNBC link again.
Very good. I appreciate the elucidation.
I still trying to figure out the threat that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia represented to the United States.
I still trying to figure out the threat that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia represented to the United States.
Amazing. A conservative who actually remembers that conservatives used to be isolationists a mere decade ago.
Gee, Rick, that was sooooooo pre-9/11. These days, it's all about the American Power, don't ya know.
Post a Comment