« Obama Will Consider "Compromise" --No Thanks | Kali Star's Blog | Energy and Immigration? Smoke and Mirrors »

On Health Insurance WE ARE NOT THE LEFT


As Paul Krugman points out, with the majority of Americans supporting a public option for health insurance, it's clear that those who support it are NOT THE LEFT BUT THE CENTER of public opinion.

How can Obama cave in to pressure from the right wing of the party? We don't need any bipartisan result after an election that we won. We don't need any compromise or bipartisan plan when we have the support of the majority of Americans for what was promised.

WE ARE NOT THE LEFT. Don't let any of these clowns portray us as such. 

21 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I had missed that poll, that put support of the plan around 70% - and 50% of Republicans! Damn. I believe these politicians may need a crash course in the concept of "majority rule."

user-pic

Oh, but you also missed Senator Conrad on Big Ed's show explaining to the vast masses that our opinions do not matter. We are irrelevant. Only the Senators can vote. Theirs are the only votes that matter. So learn your place in this oligarchy!

user-pic

Exactly! I heard a woman declare the other day, "I did not vote for this. I did not vote for Obama." This is like saying I only respect the laws I vote for and the rest are irrelevant. This argument needs to be obliterated. It is absurd, but I am sure it made prfect sense to the one espousing it.

What the statement suggests is that she will not concede to anything Obama doies because she did not vote for him. Therefore, trying to get her to come around is pointless. She simply needs to be reminded that this is one country with one set of laws, one congress, one supreme court, etc, and the laws are what they are whether she agrees with them or not. The rest of the country can determine what those laws will be at any given time, and hopefully, the courts can determine whether they violate a civil right or not.

user-pic

What law has she broken? She's just saying she wouldn't "vote" for something. I don't see how she's breaking any laws by saying she wouldn't vote for something.

user-pic

What law has she broken?

user-pic

How? He leads the right wing of the Democratic Party.

Remember, he has escalated the wars that will not be ended during his Presidency, spent far more on rescuing banks than he has on stimulating the economy, completely reversed his oft-stated positions on the rule of law, domestic spying, transparency and open government, he allows Geithner and Summers' buddies to double their salaries to escape bonus restrictions without a peep and he himself took single payer off the table before any discussions on health care took place. He may differ a tad with the right wing of the Democratic Party on this particular issue, but his major positions on all these other things have given them encouragement to dig in their heels and fight effective healthcare reform that benefits people instead of the insurance and drug company parasites.

user-pic

The question that 72% of people responded in "favor" to was:

"Would you favor or oppose the government's offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

I would have responded "in favor" for this because in theory it achieves healthcare coverage for everyone. In theory I think alot of people are in favor of this. BUT when the questions got more specific as to the details of the plan, the responses were also telling.

This is why it's taking Washington so long to pass a healthcare bill. Because 77% of the people in that survey are either very or somewhat satisfied with their current quality of care. And 63% are either very or somewhat concerned that the quality of their health care will get worse if the government creates a public option. And 68% of the people surveyed are very or somewhat concerned that a public option will restrict access to treatment. And 53% are worried about being forced to switch doctors. And only 28% believe the plan will improve the economy.

So the headline number confirms that widespread view that people are supportive of change. But they're also nervous of how that change is implemented.

Obama is not trying to appease to the "right wing". He's trying to appease the majority of Americans that are nervous about future access to treatment, ability to retain their current doctor, quality of care, etc. They want change - at 30,000 feet change sounds good. So does universal coverage. But their nervous about the fine print.

user-pic

Bill, you make good points - but a couple things.

77% of the people in that survey are either very or somewhat satisfied with their current quality of care. And 63% are either very or somewhat concerned that the quality of their health care will get worse if the government creates a public option. And 68% of the people surveyed are very or somewhat concerned that a public option will restrict access to treatment. And 53% are worried about being forced to switch doctors. And only 28% believe the plan will improve the economy.

I'm somewhat satisfied with the quality of my care - but not so much the other aspects (particularly cost). I'm somewhat concerned that a public option will restrict access, much in the same way insurance companies do by denying certain services to paying members or by denying people outright for "preexisting conditions." If the public option does nothing to address that, I'll be displeased. So I'm just saying, it's sort of hard to break down what exactly these numbers mean.

But a lot of the stuff coming from these politicians is total nonsensical crap that isn't at all about discerning what the people want.

user-pic

Take a look at Nate Silver's nice graph about polling on this topic. Check out the swings depending on the context. Here's the link to the article:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/why-is-washington-post-testing.html

user-pic

Thank you for the link.

user-pic



Here ... Kali Star . . .

This is a fairly good example of Nate Silver's way of going about rating the various wording from the polls that were available as of June 20th.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oldengoldendecoy/2009/06/from-538com-public-support-for.php

~OGD~

user-pic

Really good article eds. The 'house effect' is a subtext we've got to consider in any poll.

user-pic

Thanks. I was thinking of doing a blog on Silver's article because it so clearly illustrates the "how you ask the question determines the answer you get" notion.

user-pic

btw, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MRs_Nt465oE/SLHIxsTnYVI/AAAAAAAADAU/-M_bm6j9570/s400/nofxtrend.png from the article link you gave suggests that net house effects were very small relative to other scatter in the Pres. election -- compare the red and blue lines -- if I'm reading the graph correctly!

user-pic

The poll that everyone's talking about is a NYTimes/CBS poll. Do you really think that a NYTimes/CBS poll would be trying to discourage Obama's plan intentionally?

Maybe it just did an honest job showing that people aren't really very excited about a government option...

user-pic



Uh ... No . . .

I think the NYTimes and CBS are trying to sell what they call news so their advertisers keep filling their coffers with money.

Haven't you figured out the news business yet?

Sheesh . . .

~OGD~

user-pic

I interpret those poll results as saying that Americans are in theory in favor of a healthcare option for all, but they are concerned about how it will affect the quality of current care, ability to maintain their current doctor, increased taxes, etc. That's what is making the implmentation of the policy goal so difficult.

I don't see how the media rigged it with questions that somehow were misleading. The questions and answers seemed pretty straightforward.

user-pic

Solid analysis MCB; the polls don't necessarily conflict.

user-pic

The trick will be to devise a healthcare plan that isn't more expensive than the one we have now. I haven't seen anyone figure that one out yet. Obama keeps saying it's got to be "revenue neutral" and so far nothing Congress is working on achieves that.

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address