Interestingly Worded Poll From WaPo on the Public Option
Hmmmm . . .I haven't heard this type of framing of the question before in any poll . . .
Does anyone have any thoughts, comments, or opinions on what this means?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_101909.html?sid=ST2009101902502
10. Which of these would you prefer - (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can't get affordable private insurance, but is approved without support from Republicans in Congress); or (a plan that is approved with support from Republicans in Congress, but does not include any form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can't get affordable private insurance)?
Prefer government- Prefer Republican Neither/No
sponsored insurance support plan (vol.)
51 37 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Post-ABC News Poll
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 15-18, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,004 adults including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.
*= less than 0.5 percent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it may interest you to take a read from Greg Sargent's blog at the Plum Line
WaPo Poll: Majority Wants Public Option More Than Bipartisanship For Its Own Sake
And here's an additional WaPo article citing their latest poll:
Public option gains support
Clear Majority Now Backs Plan
Americans still divided on overall packages
By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
~OGD~
Strange. The question doesn't even accurately describe the public option - it's for the individual market as a whole, not just for those who can't afford a private option. And it suggests a subsidized plan, which a PO needn't be. What it DOES describe is Medicare and Medicaid as we currently know them. I.e. a bare majority support the actual programs for people who couldn't otherwise afford health insurance?
To be fair, maybe it's hard to give an accurate description of the public option. Maybe - 'would you support an unsubsidized government run plan competing with private plans in the individual health insurance market?'
October 20, 2009 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw an interview with Mary Landrieux this week; she claimed that supporters of a public option believed it meant free health care. She answered her own framing, saying we just can't afford it free medical care for everyone. Huh?
I know the subject is complex, but a viable, competetive non-profit government option doesn't seem that hard to explain.
October 20, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would you like a public option?
Would you prefer a public option with peace on earth?
If you could have peace on earth without a public option, would that satisfy your sorry ass.
I watched that pudgy asshat on fox for a decade frame all his repub issues; play with numbers and demonstrate that people hated dems and wished to help the rich any time they could.
Lies, damn lies and polls, I guess.
October 20, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of interesting poll questions, did you see this that josh has up on the front page???
Is this a usual question?
More than half of Republicans either say President Obama doesn't love America or say they aren't sure of his feelings toward the country he leads, according to a new national poll due out tomorrow from Public Policy Polling. Of the GOP respondents, 27% agreed that Obama "loves America," 48% disagreed and 25% said they weren't sure.
Does the President love America? Not quite like "wrong track", "right track", is it?
October 20, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink