PDA

View Full Version : What Republicans Hate To Acknowledge on Polling



Gayle in MD
03-17-2010, 02:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
To hear Republican congressional leaders and strategists tell it: If Democrats pass health care reform, the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Obama is toast.

Seriously, the message from the Grand Old Partisans is that voting to give Americans greater access to medical care is the political equivalent of a suicide pact.

The theme was repeated again and again in weekend interviews by top Republicans.

To wit:



SENATE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE CHAIR LAMAR ALEXANDER, R-Tennessee, said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation: "I think it's a political kamikaze mission to insist on this." The frequently-rejected president contender predicted a "political wipeout" for Democrats of they use their House and Senate majorities to approve the legislation.

HOUSE MINORITY LEADER JOHN BOEHNER, R-Ohio, told CNN that if health-care reform passes: "I think we have a chance at winning Republican control of the House."

UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR KARL ROVE told FOX he was certain that: "If they pass this thing, I think (Democrats) lose the House of Representatives this fall."

Wow, talk about bipartisanship!

When was the last time you saw members of one political party try so hard to help the other party retain its congressional majorities.

The generosity of Alexander, Boehner and Rove with their advice is simply remarkable.

Here you have three men who have spent their adult lifetimes trying to get and hold power and influence in Washington willingly sacrificing it in order to counsel Democrats against making a move that would lead to a "political wipeout."

What could have gotten into Alexander, Boehner, Rove and their compatriots? How could these former party of "no" men have suddenly become so very determined to tell the Democrats how to retain control of the House and Senate?

Hold it!

You don't think that these Grand Old Partisans might be playing a cynical game do you?

No, they wouldn't be suggesting that enacting health care legislation would harm Democrats if order to prevent a sea-change moment that might actually help the Democrats, would they?

Why, what could possibly possess so innocent and giving a soul as Karl Rove to engage in such a stunt?

Could it be poll numbers?

But don't the polls all show that Americans are absolutely determined to maintain a health-care system that fails to insure roughly 45 million citizens, under-insures another 45 to 50 million, puts caps on the amount of care cancer victims can receive, discriminates against older women and denies coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? Aren't Americans adamantly opposed to getting more access to more care at a lower cost?

Er, not so much.

Joel Benenson, a Democratic pollster who has worked closely with the White House, explained over the weekend why Democrats might not think it is "kamikaze mission" to enact health-care reform -- even an imperfect reform that will require significant improvement in the years to come.

As Benenson notes:


No pollster, including me, could look at the recent data and responsibly say anything other than that the American public is closely divided when it comes to supporting or opposing various health-care plans. The most recent Washington Post poll (from Feb. 10) shows a narrow gap between support and opposition: 46 percent favor; 49 percent oppose. This data is consistent with eight of the 12 most recent independent public polls reported on Pollster.com.

Here's one reason why Democrats might not want to take advice from Rove and his colleagues: Surveys tell us that a significant number of Americans are unaware of what's in the health-care legislation. It's not exactly their fault. The process has been muddled, prone toward complex compromises and at times wholly dysfunctional. That's created predictable confusion, and a tendency toward concern and opposition.

When Americans are informed about core components of the legislation as it currently stands, however, approval ratings rise. In fact, polling data (even from polls that Republicans are citing selectively) shows that the pieces of the plan -- protection for Americans with preexisting conditions, adjustments to address the drug coverage gap for seniors, the development of insurance exchanges to allow small business owners, farmers and others who need coverage to negotiate for affordable coverage from private insurance companies -- are extremely popular. Support ranges from 61 percent to as high as 81 percent.

Here's another reason why Democrats might not want to take their political cues from the Republicans: Polling tells us that much of the discomfort with the health-care reform legislation that is currently advancing is not being expressed by Tea Partisan dead-enders who are as certain that anything the government touches go bad as they are that Barack Obama was born in Indonesia, or Kenya or, well, one of those "ends in a vowel" countries. (And don't say that "America" ends in a vowel because, uh, well, you know, "United States" doesn't.)

A lot of the discomfort with the legislation comes from "party of yes, hell yes" Americans who think the proposals advanced by the president fail to go far enough.

Benenson points out that:


In fact, two recent polls, including one with the most negative ratings on health care, reveal through follow-up questions that a significant number of people who oppose current plans do so because they don't go far enough rather than because they go too far. Not only is it absurd to suggest that these people would rise up against Democrats for passing the president's plan, it is far more likely that they would join others who support the plan and punish those who tried to block reform or voted against it.

Let's take the CNN poll from early January -- the most negative independent poll on health care and one that predated President Obama's proposal. 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.


Of course, Benenson is a Democrat.

Critics of the plan are free to reject his analysis and his numbers -- even the numbers that come from independent polls that the Republicans have been citing.

But it should not come as much of a surprise that, instead of following self-serving "advice" from Lamar Alexander and John Boehner, most Democrats have chosen to go elsewhere for counsel.

Nor should anyone be surprised if, when all is said and done, Benenson might turn out to be right when he argues that that:


In politics, new information is always the most potent. When it comes to health care and insurance, once reform passes, the tangible benefits Americans will realize will trump the fear-mongering rhetoric opponents are stoking today.

And when that reality kicks in, the political burden will shift from those who supported the plan to those who voted against banning insurance companies from denying coverage to those who are sick, against the tax credits for small businesses offering coverage, or against helping seniors on Medicare pay less for prescription drugs.

It is no accident that Republican leaders are warning Democrats of dire political consequences if health reform passes.

But there is every reason to believe that for Republicans, the negative consequences will be their own.

</div></div>

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/541276/savvy_dems_reject_gop_advice_on_health_reform

Gayle in MD
03-17-2010, 05:15 AM
AND: Of the 77% disapprovel of Congress, a whopping 57% disapprove of the Republicans, according to the latest NBC/Wall St. Journal poll, while the President, holds strong at 58% approval, in spite of our still plowing our way recovering Bush's massive job losses from the worst (George Bush) recession (and two Bush unfinished wars,) a better approval than Reagan under a recession not as deep as the one Bush left us.

hmmmm....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

pooltchr
03-17-2010, 07:58 AM
Americans oppose Obamacare 53% to 43%. If you look at those who "strongly support" vs "strongly oppose" the plan, the gap is even greater.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...lth_care_reform (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform)

Steve

Deeman3
03-17-2010, 08:20 AM
Well, it seems they will get this now by hook or crook, as crooks often do.

The blowback will be in the next elections and those who are not re-eleced but bought off by jobs after the elections will not be too upset.

It was reported by the New England Journal of Medicine that almost half the doctors will consider quiting if Obamacare passes and almost no one will select general practice.

This is gonna be great for America! Sleeze it in and see what happens in November. See what happens when they suck $500,000,000,000 out of Medicare and dump it into Medicade. Those who have paid their entire lives for care will be out and those who have never worked will be in high cotton.

What a way to treat our seniors....

pooltchr
03-17-2010, 09:18 AM
I can see a black market in healthcare in our future. Some place like Bermuda will be building hospitals right and left, and doctors will flock there to set up their practice. Many people will choose to travel for their healthcare, rather than accept substandard care here at home.
Limbaugh stated he would go to Costa Rica for any medical service. (And the lefties all got excited, because they thought he said he was going to move there.)
I wonder how long it will take for the few remaining supporters to admit that this is a horrible mistake.

Steve

eg8r
03-17-2010, 12:43 PM
Senator Brown's constituents were pretty clear they did not want this HC reform bill.

eg8r

wolfdancer
03-17-2010, 01:01 PM
that they usually come off badly, in polls?

Deeman3
03-17-2010, 01:03 PM
Most who now have to pay for insurance or actually work for a living do not want this bill. If it were true health care reform they would. If you are not retired and dependent on Medicare, have never had nor ever intend to have a job or are now on Medicade, it will be better. The problem is that, as we go forward, many more will be taken from the first group and tossed into the second.

I have to admit, if I were without any health care insurance I'd want it if nothing else, to drag donw the rest of the patients with me!

This will pass. I am now sure. It is such a horrible bill, it can't fail to be passed by this congress.

10 years of revenue for 4 years of coverage? Anyone see any issues with this? Of course, not from the left. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Even Dennis the mennis Kusinish has caved to the Obama charms. The way Nancy is structuring this, in ten years you won't be able to find anyone responsible for the mess.

pooltchr
03-17-2010, 01:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The way Nancy is structuring this, in ten years you won't be able to find anyone responsible for the mess.
</div></div>

It won't matter. By then, the responsible parties will be long gone from Congress and the WH, although I suspect many of them will be filling some pretty high paying positions as lobbiests, or sweating away in some DC liberal think tank!

Steve

wolfdancer
03-17-2010, 01:26 PM
Other civilized countries (are we still grouped in that category?) have adopted it, but not without problems, complaints, and dissatisfaction.
I was hoping for some kind of compromise.
I can see where someone that makes it through the long arduous trek, years of study and internship,to become a Dr. would want to be paid more then a WalMart sales clerk, and doubly so for a skilled surgeon, arguably as tough to do as hitting a Sandy Koufax fast ball, or returning a Roger Federer serve..and they should be paid accordingly.

pooltchr
03-17-2010, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
a Dr. would want to be paid more then a WalMart sales clerk, </div></div>

You aren't belittling Wal-Mart employees, are you? Those underpaid, under appreciated, overworked victims of the free economy???? Are you saying they aren't worth as much as a doctor????

Steve

wolfdancer
03-17-2010, 02:45 PM
well, I have to be careful who I disagree with from now on, since there is now a "Clear and Present Danger" for doing so...so whatever you think is right, is right on, with me. I just ordered both the Nixon and Reagan, biographies, and can't wait to get the two Georges as well...I don't want to appear disloyal to the party

Deeman3
03-17-2010, 03:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Other civilized countries (are we still grouped in that category?) have adopted it, but not without problems, complaints, and dissatisfaction.
I was hoping for some kind of compromise.
I can see where someone that makes it through the long arduous trek, years of study and internship,to become a Dr. would want to be paid more then a WalMart sales clerk, and doubly so for a skilled surgeon, arguably as tough to do as hitting a Sandy Koufax fast ball, or returning a Roger Federer serve..and they should be paid accordingly. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Sadly, I think we are beyond compromise, from both sides. I bet, given a few hours and a little 14 year old scotch, even two old left and right guys like us cold come up with a meaningful bill, written on less than fifty sheets of paper that would A) Insure a much larger group of people, reduce health care costs and even hold insurance companies and lawyers accountable. Politics aside (which is admitedly not possible in Washington) we could forge a bill that would be acceptable to both tea partiers and Ted Kazinaki worshipers all in an afternoon.

Of course, we would have much less vested interest in the make-up of the house/senate/white house over the next few years.

Unfortunately, our government, left and right, congress as well as all potential presidential candidates are more interested in power than solutions. Heck, I'd even throw in first abortion free as a kicker to sweeten the pot. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

They missed out when they didn't draft us for Joint Custody of the kids in DC!</span>

pooltchr
03-17-2010, 03:13 PM
Deeman, you may be on to something here. We need a Citizens Oversight Committee to regulate Congress! Real, normal people to walk around the halls of Congress, ruler in hand, ready to smack the backs of hands that continue the unending power grab!

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-17-2010, 05:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senator Brown's constituents were pretty clear they did not want this HC reform bill.

eg8r </div></div>

Senator Brown's constituents already have health care in their state....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
03-17-2010, 05:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most who now have to pay for insurance or actually work for a living do not want this bill. If it were true health care reform they would. If you are not retired and dependent on Medicare, have never had nor ever intend to have a job or are now on Medicade, it will be better. The problem is that, as we go forward, many more will be taken from the first group and tossed into the second.

I have to admit, if I were without any health care insurance I'd want it if nothing else, to drag donw the rest of the patients with me!

This will pass. I am now sure. It is such a horrible bill, it can't fail to be passed by this congress.

10 years of revenue for 4 years of coverage? Anyone see any issues with this? Of course, not from the left. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Even Dennis the mennis Kusinish has caved to the Obama charms. The way Nancy is structuring this, in ten years you won't be able to find anyone responsible for the mess. </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066"> You are really out of touch with the statistics about the entire health care issue...</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Report: America's Middle Class Shouldering the Brunt of Health Insurance Crisis
Wednesday, 17 March 2010 14:19 Press Release Health Care Reform 14771
1 2 3 4 5 (0 votes, average 0 out of 5)
Princeton, NJ--(ENEWSPF)--March 17, 2010. The two recessions that Americans have weathered in the first decade of the 21st century have taken a tremendous toll on people’s ability to afford health insurance—and employers’ capacity to offer it. A new report from the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), documents that while the situation has been tough for everyone, it’s America’s middle class that has been hardest hit.

The report shows that the number of middle-income earners who obtained health insurance from their employers dropped by 3 million people from 2000 to 2008. Just 66 percent of people in families earning roughly $45,000 to $85,000 are now insured through their employer—a drop of seven percentage points from 2000 to 2008.

Employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) has long been the mainstay of health coverage for middle-class families, who typically do not qualify for government insurance programs. Among middle-income Americans, only about half of the decline in employer-sponsored coverage from 2000 to 2008 was offset by government insurance programs. For people who earned less money, declines in ESI were even steeper, but those numbers were mostly offset by increases in coverage through government insurance programs like Medicaid.

The result is that America's middle-class became uninsured at a pace faster than those with less or more income. In total, 13 million middle-income earners were uninsured in 2008—about 2 million more than in 2000.

“America’s uninsured crisis means that hard-working people with average incomes are being squeezed,” said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “The fallout from rising health insurance costs hits everyone. Employers must choose between either passing on costs to workers who cannot afford the increase and therefore drop coverage, or paying more for their employees’ coverage at the cost of creating and preserving jobs.”

The most recent estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that 46.3 million people are uninsured, but these figures were compiled before the downturn in the current economy. Experts assume millions more have become uninsured since the 2008 data, due to job loss and rising costs of health insurance since that time.

The report released today—Barely Hanging On: Middle-Class and Uninsured—chronicles state-by-state health coverage trends. In the first decade of this century, nearly every state has seen increased numbers of uninsured residents, greater costs for individual and family policies for health insurance and significant erosion in private coverage. The report was prepared by the State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC) at the University of Minnesota. Researchers averaged data from the U.S. Census Bureau from 1999/2000 and 2007/2008 and data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The report shows:

More middle-class Americans are uninsured.
Nationwide, the total number of uninsured, middle-class people increased by more than 2 million since 2000, to12.9 million in 2008.
The average employee’s costs for health insurance rose, while income fell.
Nationwide, the average cost an employee paid for a family insurance policy rose 81 percent from 2000 to 2008. During the same period, median household income fell 2.5 percent (adjusted for inflation).
Fewer people were offered, eligible for, or accepted insurance coverage through their jobs.
As costs of health insurance premiums rose, some employers stopped offering coverage benefits to employees, or changed the criteria for employees’ eligibility. While most employers still paid the lion’s share of their employees’ insurance premiums, rising costs have been passed on to workers—with some choosing to drop insurance.

Nationwide, the percentage of people who worked for firms that did not offer insurance increased to 12 percent in 2008. The number of workers who were ineligible for ESI—even though their employer offered it—was 22 percent in 2008. That means more than one in five people who work in firms that offer health insurance weren’t eligible for the benefit. And the percentage of employees nationwide who did not accept ESI increased three percentage points since 2000; 21 percent of employees offered ESI in 2008 did not accept.
“The facts show that everyone is suffering right now, regardless of income,” said Lavizzo-Mourey. “For middle-class families, changes in the cost of insurance far outweigh changes in income. That means a bigger piece of the household budget must go to insurance, or families have to go without coverage, delay needed care and face bankruptcy if anyone in the family gets seriously ill. Business owners can’t afford to shoulder more of the burden of health care costs. And states can’t afford the influx of laid-off workers into public programs. It’s a crisis in need of solutions.”

The report is being released during Cover the Uninsured Week (March 14-20), a campaign organized by RWJF to advocate for health coverage for all Americans. Now in its eighth year, it is the largest, nonpartisan mobilization in history seeking solutions for the millions of Americans who are uninsured.



</div></div>

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=...Itemid=88890248 (http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14771:report-americas-middle-class-shouldering-the-brunt-of-health-insurance-crisis&catid=88888989:health-care-reform&Itemid=88890248)

wolfdancer
03-17-2010, 06:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem is that, as we go forward, many more will be taken from the first group and tossed into the second.
</div></div>
I believe that is the same argument that was used against the introduction of SS, also the introduction of Medicare, and the free milk for schoolchildren, program....

pooltchr
03-17-2010, 09:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senator Brown's constituents were pretty clear they did not want this HC reform bill.

eg8r </div></div>

Senator Brown's constituents already have health care in their state....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

Which could be the very reason they don't want to see it expand to the federal level!
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-18-2010, 12:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem is that, as we go forward, many more will be taken from the first group and tossed into the second.
</div></div>
I believe that is the same argument that was used against the introduction of SS, also the introduction of Medicare, and the free milk for schoolchildren, program....
</div></div>

They never know what they're talking about. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

wolfdancer
03-18-2010, 12:32 AM
be careful what you say...the sword of Damocles hangs over your head....from what I have read...
I'm waiting for my "exit Visa"....probably sometime today. Let's keep in touch via email.....take care....don't answer the door in the middle of the night....and don't go outside to put out the fires....the burning crosses on your front lawn....

Qtec
03-18-2010, 01:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Americans oppose Obamacare 53% to 43%. If you look at those who "strongly support" vs "strongly oppose" the plan, the gap is even greater.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...lth_care_reform (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform)

Steve </div></div>

Do you have a memory problem because we have been all through this before and you were wrong then!
Q

Gayle in MD
03-18-2010, 06:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Americans oppose Obamacare 53% to 43%. If you look at those who "strongly support" vs "strongly oppose" the plan, the gap is even greater.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...lth_care_reform (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform)

Steve </div></div>

Do you have a memory problem because we have been all through this before and you were wrong then!
Q
</div></div>

LOL, they always use the most rightwing polling organization in the country, then they wonder why they never get anything right.

Worse yet, some critisize non stop, the Huffingtonpost, then turn right around and link to articles at none other than Huffingtonpost, themselves!

Irrelevance personified.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
03-18-2010, 07:56 AM
Typical reaction. If you don't like the facts presented, attack the source!

Steve

LWW
03-19-2010, 10:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Americans oppose Obamacare 53% to 43%. If you look at those who "strongly support" vs "strongly oppose" the plan, the gap is even greater.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...lth_care_reform (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform)

Steve </div></div>

Do you have a memory problem because we have been all through this before and you were wrong then!
Q
</div></div>

LOL, they always use the most rightwing polling organization in the country, then they wonder why they never get anything right.

Worse yet, some critisize non stop, the Huffingtonpost, then turn right around and link to articles at none other than Huffingtonpost, themselves!

Irrelevance personified.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

</div></div>

Sorry sweetheart ... but it's been posted here many times that Rasmussen is an elite and most accurate polling organization. Perhaps that is why they are preferred by realists.

LWW

eg8r
03-19-2010, 12:01 PM
LOL, there goes qtip trying to tell us he knows more than the pollster.

eg8r