WaPo/ABC poll uses skewed sample to show public-option support
posted at 10:55 am on October 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
My first clue that the new WaPo/ABC poll had big problems in its sampling came from question 38 of the raw data released by ABC last night, the generic Congressional ballot. Most polls have that within the margin of error; both Rasmussen and Pew have it at a dead heat. The WaPo/ABC survey has Democrats winning that matchup by twelve points, 51%/39%.
That tends to discredit much of what the Post reports this morning:
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public.
Americans remain sharply divided about the overall packages moving closer to votes in Congress and President Obama’s leadership on the issue, reflecting the partisan battle that has raged for months over the administration’s top legislative priority. But sizable majorities back two key and controversial provisions: both the so-called public option and a new mandate that would require all Americans to carry health insurance.
Independents and senior citizens, two groups crucial to the debate, have warmed to the idea of a public option, and are particularly supportive if it would be administered by the states and limited to those without access to affordable private coverage.
But in a sign of the fragile coalition politics that influence the negotiations in Congress, Obama’s approval ratings on health-care reform are slipping among his fellow Democrats even as they are solidifying among independents and seniors. Among Democrats, strong approval of his handling of the issue has dropped 15 percentage points since mid-September.
The sampling comprises 33% Democrats, as opposed to only 20% Republicans. That thirteen-point spread is two points larger than their September polling, at 32%/21%. More tellingly, it’s significantly larger than their Election Day sample, which included 35% Democrats to 26% Republicans for a gap of nine points, about a third smaller than the gap in this poll. Of course, that’s when they were more concerned about accuracy over political points of view.
Remember when I wrote that poll watchers need to remember the recent Gallup poll on party affiliation? Gallup polled 5,000 adults and found that the gap between Democrats and Republicans had closed to the smallest margin since 2005, six points, and had been reduced more than half since the beginning of the year. For the WaPo/ABC poll, though, their sample gap has increased almost 50% during that time.
Given that skew, it’s hardly surprising that they find a 57% approval rating for Obama, up three points since last month, almost the entirety of the gap increase since the last poll. His 48% tie on health care should be a significant disapproval instead, and the 45%/51% slide on the deficit has probably expanded at the same rate as the deficit in a survey with a realistic sample.
However, even that support seems rather … murky. In question 6, “Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?”, only 45% said they approved, while 48% said they disapproved. The public-option question gets asked in this manner:
8. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?
I’d call that more than a little biased. The “compete with private insurance” is a political claim by ObamaCare advocates. The private insurance industry competes within itself, just as all markets do. The government plan would not compete, but would undercut prices while getting subsidized on losses, while the same government imposes “fees” and new taxes on insurers. It’s no more “competition” than it would be to have Wal-Mart run the retail business and assess fees on its “competitors” for the privilege of existence.
On that question, the public option gets the exact same numbers as Obama’s approval ratings. Consider the implications of that in regards to this skewed survey.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
The dirty little secret about polling is that unless there’s an election coming up within a week or two — where the poll results have an actual real event they’re trying to predict — pollsters have the ability to skewer their numbers any way they want, because they’re no way to prove it isn’t true.
Which means for something like the Virginia or New Jersey gubernatorial races, whatever the numbers done by the pollsters for the Washington Post or the New York Times have been showing, there’s no reason for them to be accurate until next week. Then, if the numbers are skewered because they rig the voting sample or the questions, if the final pre-election poll numbers are completely off from the ballot results, it affects the polling company’s future ability to attract clients (which would be true for a pollster skewing left or right).
Of course, if the Times, the WaPo or some other organization with an ideological bias wanted to have their own in-house polling firm instead of contracting out, they could skew the final results all the way up to the Monday before the election, since suppressing voter turnout for the other side would be more important than actually getting the results right. But running a polling company is expensive, and even before their current econmic woes, the Times and the Post contracted out for their numbers. It’s just that you shouldn’t look at any of them until the final weekend before the vote without also looking at the internal data in order to check for bias.
jon1979 on October 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Projection is a terrible thing.
lorien1973 on October 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM
You’ll never believe this but my son had just been born and we were eating Christmas dinner with my in-laws and I toasted the fall of the Wall and collapse of the Warsaw Pact over turkey and gravy.
Bleeds Blue on October 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM
“Decent” (which is arguable esp. in the case of Britain) single-payer systems are currently going broke all over the “civilized” world. Doubtful they will last until your grandkids are adults anyway.
And by the way, it isn’t Republicans who are keeping ObamaCare from being passed. The Dems have control of Congress and can pass it any time they want. Be sure you explain that to your grandkids and your son, okay?
Missy on October 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM
So the best that 80% NON-Republicans could do is 57% approval? And who would construe that as good news for the administration? Oh wait…
sloopy on October 20, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Yeah? Prove it.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM
They don’t care. They just want their binky.
BB could go to MA and get all the “free” universal care he wants for him and his family. And end up paying more for it. And be saddled with rationing. And closing hospitals. And his health future in the hands of elected politicians. Everything he wants. But he won’t.
Yet, he’ll punish everyone else with that type of program cuz he just can’t accept the reality of what happens when it’s implemented.
lorien1973 on October 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM
This is in large part very true. My only caveat, if this is the belief, apply this logic consistently.
As I point to the Rasmussen polls so prominently listed in the headlines section here :)
Just a note and caution, Rasmussen polls are likley voters. The first filter for likley voters is previous voting history. By definition, young voters 15-18 who will be voting in 2012 are excluded.
Young voters 19-29 make up 18% of the electorate according to exits.
Young voters 19-29 voted for Obama 66/31%.
NextGen on October 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM
LOL.
Bad for business? Who is paying the bill? I’m inclined to give pretty short shrift to non peer approved articles on studies paid for by a company who stands to profit by a favorable outcome. Quit trying to blow smoke. There is always a market for crappy data passed off as truth.
a capella on October 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM
They why are you advocating the return of Statism?
Do you understand that its all the same thing?
It’s the same failed system that suppresses individual liberties and freedoms.
You supposedly toasted it’s downfall, are you going to Celebrate it’s resurgence?
Juno77 on October 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM
He said the wall and the pact, nothing about the ideas is represented.
lorien1973 on October 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Dr. Goebbels would be proud. When formulating the BIG LIE, throw in a trumped up “poll” to back up your statement.
GarandFan on October 20, 2009 at 12:12 PM
BB:
We now know that you’re a full fledged troll by the above statement. So, your “employer” pays $20k for your health insurance? There is no way in hell that your employer pays $20k for your health insurance under any group policy (which is what it would have to be if its provided by your employer) that I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen a lot of them). Even if we assume that the above is accurate and due to a serious pre-existing condition, there are many other ways to address this other than a public option.
volnation on October 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I saw the Washington Post article and laughed at it as obvious left wing propaganda.
Skewed sample? Of course; whatever it takes. Journalism is dead.
Phil Byler on October 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM
A study, as you know, is very different from a poll.
And both pollsters and newspapers benefit from accurate polls as they try to hold their credibility (whatever is left, you may say) and sell their services.
Bleeds Blue on October 20, 2009 at 12:18 PM
your naivety is charming. you should look up what Axelrod used to do for a living.
runner on October 20, 2009 at 12:19 PM
But as Mika B and Douche-Joe will attest, clearly the journalists at ABC make every attempt to be objective.
Jaibones on October 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM
They why are you advocating the return of Statism?
Do you understand that its all the same thing?
It’s the same failed system that suppresses individual
liberties and freedoms.
You supposedly toasted it’s downfall, are you going to Celebrate it’s resurgence?
Did you understand those questions?
Or is it a case that they highlight you’re contradictions?
Juno77 on October 20, 2009 at 12:28 PM
So your going to tell them stories about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Healthcare Fairy?
Fighton03 on October 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM
lorien1973, if the WaPo wants to change the percentages it can. The Pew numbers still show a 13% difference between the two parties is a reasonable figure, so this WaPo poll isn’t biased as Ed claims.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Yes….usually from pols looking to build more gov’t, and those who feed at the tax dollar trough. AGW is a prime example.
Fighton03 on October 20, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Fixed.
Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Gallup has it at 5. So why isn’t that a “reasonable figure”
Rasmussen also has it at 5.
See the problem with not using your own data for your own polling?
Consistency. But if that doesn’t matter and only the results matter (as seems apparent here), then just use any ole random number.
People, like you, will nod in agreement. Cuz it shows the result you want. And really, that’s what matters isn’t it?
lorien1973 on October 20, 2009 at 12:43 PM
So it’s perfectly okay for the WaPo to put out a biased poll – to Lie about the support for O’crapcare?
What’s the saying? You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs?
The ends justify the means, right?
If you can’t convince people honestly, then it’s worth it to Lie to them, right?
After all, it’s all for their own good, right?
If you can’t control the electorate through healthcare without lying a little, then you’re justified, is that what you’re saying?
Juno77 on October 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Translation: “I can’t credibly refute the skewed polling sample, so will change the subject and attack another pollster”.
Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM
lorien, the Gallup poll you’re showing aren’t measuring the same thing as Pew, as Pew’s include independents. And sorry, but I do consider Rasmussen’s polling to be skewed in favor of the Republi, er, Fox News Party.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Gallups includes leaners. It’s a minor and irrelevant difference. Keep ignoring the points I’ve been making. I understand it’s inconvenient for you.
But your “fox news party” talking point is still working well for you. So keep up the good work there. Goose step to the tune you are told.
lorien1973 on October 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM
If it is so fabulous, then why don’t they just do it, w/out the cover of bipartisanship? Then the Dems can say, “see, it’s fantastic, and WE gave it to you!” Yay! Just do it. If your product is so superior, then who cares about polls? Who cares about Republicans? Do it, Dems. Believe in your policies for once, and do it!
JAM on October 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Next week, WaPo will just poll the people in their office building. The results will be 99% in favor because they’ll accidently poll a UPS worker who’s delivering a package.
Most people here will realize that the poll is probably not very accurate, while others will high-five each other in triumph at how America’s coming around to their way of thinking.
DrAllecon on October 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I just had my review and you are wrong. The average policy for a family is about $13.5K. My employer provides excellent coverage, bless him. The public option isn;t actually aimed at our company, but at smaller and less profitable operations who have far fewer options than we are fortunate to have.
A decent public or mixed insurance system is no way comparable to Soviet Communism, and to assert that it is, is ludicrous. You might just as well say that the interstate highway system is communist, because they’re not privately owned toll roads.
Pollsters sell a product. Biased polling is a bad product for which there is little demand, and pollsters who provide it lose money. Therefore, in order to protect their large houses, private school tuition payments and foreign vacations, pollsters try to turn out accurate polls.
That’s not to say that Axelrod didn’t use polls to try to shape public opinion. But that’s something you do after you take an accurate poll, not something that is done by producing bad data.
Bleeds Blue on October 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM
To answer your first silly statement, another “professional” pollster, John Zogby, told Fox News once that he polls on certain days of the week to favor Democrats, and he actually endorsed a Democrat candidate in NY State a few years ago.
As for your third statement, did the WaPo use the exact same percentages of respondents for each succesive poll they did on this subject? If they used the exact same numbers on all of the polls, you might have a point.
Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2009 at 12:54 PM
FYI, here’s a post from Nate Silver (who is pretty solid when it comes to the numbers) that touches on some of the polling on party ID that’s been done lately:
The Not-So-Bad-Case Scenario
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM
But did you include Ronnie Reagan in your toast? He’s the guy who brought that wall down, after all.
Naw, didn’t think so.
Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Gallup had no category for independents at all, so you can’t directly compare that to what Pew and the WaPo did.
I just calls it as I sees it.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Followup question: why were you and your family eating Christmas dinner on November 9th? That’s the day the Wall fell.
Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Which explains why a recent AP “poll” sampled TWICE as many Democrats as Republicans, and also explains why most recent NY Fishwrap “polls” have had almost 20% more Democrats than Republicans in the polling samples.
Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM
First of all, you have to look at everything they are doing, not just Healthcare.
Now, Did the Soviet Union or any other Statist system arise overnight?
No, they came about incrementally.
Note one of the definitions of Socialism in the Merriam-Webster online Dictionary:
Socialism:
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Note the word: ‘transitional ‘
So just because Obama didn’t wave a magic wand and create a Statist utopia, doesn’t mean that isn’t their goal.
Okay, if you assert that isn’t their ultimate goal, then what are they trying to do?
Juno77 on October 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Relatively speaking, yes. Generally after an armed revolution or conquest from outside.
Bleeds Blue on October 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM
screwed but accurate.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM
You don’t believe that samples should be an accurate reflection of the population?
Why not just take all of your polls at DNC headquarters and be done with it?
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM
I believe you meant “and”, not “or”.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Several recent polls have shown support for the public option being higher than support for a particular bill. I’ll show a few links later.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 11:33 AM
In what passes for your mind, you can’t imagine anything that has happened in the last 9 months that might have interrupted that trend? Assuming that it was a real trend to begin with?
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Given last November’s election results, it’s a real trend all right. And sadly, the increasing nuttiness of the Fox News Party is reinforcing said trend.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Why did you wait until your son got sick before trying to buy insurance?
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Why don’t all the pollsters just go for it and just put out the lie they want…it’ not like many people believe polls anymore… I don’t even if they proport to demostrate what I would like e.g. Obama’s job approval is going down… I still wonder what the real number is…
CCRWM on October 20, 2009 at 1:25 PM
That doesn’t surprise me in the least. Right now, the general public doesn’t have much in the way of detailed knowledge of health care reform to go on. Of course, we could have been having a real debate on issues like the public option, but the Fox News Party has been more interested in “death panel” B.S.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Relatively speaking?
So you’re saying the whole bureaucratic apparatus arose overnight?
Okay…….
Are you also claiming that the process Can’t occur incrementally?
Juno77 on October 20, 2009 at 1:27 PM
The only thing fact free is this poll. If this were actually true the Democrats would already have passed this piece of crap and King Obama would already have signed it.
BTW, what about all the polls showing that people do not support this plan, do they suddenly not count at all?
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Last time I checked, Obama only one by 5 or 6 points.
Many of the people who voted for him did so not because they agreed with his policies, but because they thought that voting for a black guy would be cool.
Why do you think a 5% margin of victory last November supports a 13% gap now?
Or are you just lying again?
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 1:29 PM
You need new glasses.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 1:29 PM
How incredibly desperate you people are. The Democrats control every branch of government right now, and if they can not pass this thing, then blaming Fox News or the Republicans is just an excuse.
The truth is people are concerned about the size of the deficit. I know that folks such as yourself have no problem with the fact that 45 cents of every dollar spent by the government is borrowed, but most people do not want to see the United States turned into Argentina.
Now, go along and ask people if they want free health care and a new house and all they can eat for nothing and tell us how they said
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 1:32 PM
This is crap. There are several Republican bills and they actually address the issue of pre existing conditions without a government take over of the health insurance industry.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM
So, we should call the Statist Democrats the MSNBC,CBS,ABC,NYT,LAT….Party?
And why is that?
Could it because the Statists Democrats were Lying about transparency or is it that the Failure of MSNBC,CBS,ABC,NYT,LAT…
Juno77 on October 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM
In that case why not just leave out Republicans altogether and you can get an ever better result, for your purposes. From what I have seen of other polls lately, this is an outlier. But the more obvious fact is that the politicians are not acting as if they believe this. And they have their own polls.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 1:35 PM
This is an oldie, but still a goodie about the Democrats:
That still cracks me up. Seriously though, Democrats in Congress don’t all march in lockstep, which is why Hilary Clinton’s health care reform bill died in Congress back in 1994. The current disagreements should be seen as a part of the debate that’s likely to end up with a compromise health care bill that will be passed by the House and Senate and signed by President Obama.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I read some off the wall comments in these forums, but this one is truly astounding. Blaming the sample is the last refuge of the loser? Huh? Spoken like someone who’s never taken a course in statistics. Actually questioning the sample should be done BEFORE you even attempt any statistical analysis. Any statistician will tell you that a biased sample will give you useless results. Even a simple random sample can give you incorrect results, so what could a biased sample do? Does anyone really think that party identification is anywhere close to what this sample is? My question to you then is this: If questioning the sample is not legitimate, how then do you propose to ensure the integrity of the statistical results? Please be specific.
Goldenavatar on October 20, 2009 at 1:42 PM
I’m saying that Lenin, Mao, Castro et al didn’t sit around thinking — “hey, let’s get health care now. Then the steel industry. Then the military. Then we’ll go after the vote, then all private property…”
When they took over, they took over, and if they didn’t get around to something right away, we’ll even a police state takes a minute or two to assemble. But the intent and the means were there from the start.
I suppose it could happen gradually. Chavez, but Venezuela was hardly a functioning capitalist state to start with, so the analogy is imperfect.
I can’t think of any affluent democracy that’s crept into totalitarianism, though, as you? And the tide of Democratic Socialism, or European Leftism or whatever you want to call it, even seems to have crested, falling back a bit to synthesis broadly defined by the Sarkozy/Blair axis, so the domino theory of Statism seems to be as incorrect as the Cold War version I grew up with.
Bleeds Blue on October 20, 2009 at 1:43 PM
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm. Take a look at these. Most of the recent polls show high support for a public option.
Terrye, you are just wrong. None of the Republican bills deal with pre-existing conditions to any significant extent. If my memory is correct, one of the bills gives $300 million annually to high risk pools set up by the states, which would work out to less than $30/participant annually. One bill provides funds to states to establish or review high risk pools, but doesn’t actually require the states to do anything. None of the bills require insurance companies to issue policies to people with pre-existing conditions.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I looked at this poll and it makes no sense. Really. Look at this question:
So one hand a majority support a mandate that requires everyone to have insurance, on the other they do not want to help people get it, on the other they support a government sponsored plan to help people get insurance blah blah blah.
If you read this thing, it makes no sense.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Jimbo:
I am not wrong,there is the Affordable Access Plan, and even McCain talked about a high risk pool for certain people. The truth is you could pass a law tomorrow that forced insurance companies to accept these people, but it would raise costs for everyone else.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Actually pre-existing conditions don’t preclude individuals from coverage, they just have to pay more for it. I don’t see why this should offend anyone. It makes perfect sense. Do you also oppose higher auto insurance premiums for drivers with multiple collisions and traffic violations? What about individuals who own luxury cars?
Goldenavatar on October 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Listen buster, you were the one yammering about the Fox News Party and all that crap. I just pointed out that the MoveOn,org party and the Daily Kos party control both the White House and the Congress. It is a fact.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Actually, pre-existing conditions do preclude coverage for individual insurance outside of the high risk market.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Looks like you are unfamiliar with what Axelrod’s business, real business was (and still is to some extent). King of AstroTurf ran ASK Public Strategies. Here is a quick summary: “ASK has made a name for itself in shaping public opinion and manufacturing public support “. Key word : manufacturing, where there was none.
runner on October 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM
And then there is doozy from the poll:
I liked the one about do you want Republican involvement even if it means people can’t get coverage and they all die question too.
WaPo is doing its best to cover for Obama here. They know that there are some members of the press who have not been kissing his butt enough lately and they want to jump in there and let him know whose side they are on.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Jimbo, I take care of sick and hurt people. This is what I do. Some of them have VA, some have Medicare and Medicaid, some have insurance…I have never known anyone to be left to die because of a lack of health insurance. This is just a big fat lie.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM
LOL! Democrats are far, far less kowtowing to Markos and MoveOn than Republicans are to Limbaugh and Fox News. The GOP has in fact been largely co-opted by a crazy base that’s been well-fed by Fox News and wingnut talk radio.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Oh come on, there are always people who will go along with the majority, they have faith in the majority. If you can lie about what the majority wants, there will be people who will assume that is the right response…so yes, you most certainly can create a bogus poll to help shape public opinion.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 1:57 PM
LOL yourself buddy. The Democrats can not even get it together to come up with a coherent policy when they are the freaking majority…largely because their idiot base asks for the impossible on a regular basis.
And most of the people watching Fox and are not even Republicans. That is why their ratings are so high…as for Rush…no, he does not run things, much as he might like to. At least Rush is not some race baiting hack.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:01 PM
I suppose that’s better than the democrat party being co-opted by the communist party. At least we can still speak our minds. We’ve seen what happens to anyone who challenges the communist democrats.
Good luck hanging with your party! BTW, have they asked you your shirt size yet?
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:01 PM
ABC radio they just used this poll to claim that ‘only 20% of the people are willing to claim they are Republicans’.
Freddy on October 20, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Terrye, you’re simply wrong. Here’s a summary of three of the GOP proposals. There is no guaranteed coverage of pre-existing conditions.
1). Here’s from the House GOP’s Health Care Solutions Group this June: Encourages states to create a Universal Access Program by establishing and/or reforming existing programs to guarantee all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable coverage.
2). Here’s from the Empoering Patients First Act: “5) Ensuring Coverage for Those with Pre-Existing Conditions or High Health Care Needs
• High Risk Pool/Reinsurance Pools
o Increased Federal block grant for functioning, qualified pools
• Incentives: states will not receive credits unless they establish a pool”
3). Here’s from the Patient Choice Act: Creating Affordable and Accessible Options through State‐Based Exchanges
Our health care system should be easier to use, more predictable, and provide integrated care in a more equitable manner. The
current regulation of the insurance market does not incentivize health plans to cover sick patients. And too many patients are
unable to afford premiums. Americans inherently know that innovative markets work, but businesses must play by transparent
rules and compete for patients’ business. The market must work for every patient every time. Patients should have convenient and
affordable options, and they should have control of those options. The Patients’ Choice Act would ensure that the federal government partners with states to create State Health Insurance Exchanges
with the following benefits:
• One‐stop marketplace for health insurance. Individuals would get a hassle‐free opportunity to choose the plan that best
meets their needs through an Exchange.
• Guaranteed access to care. The Exchange would require all participating insurers to offer coverage to any individual—
regardless of patient age or health history.
You’re wrong. Oh, and one of the GOP proposals includes the state exhanges in the Baucus bill. I guess it was okay when the GOP proposed it, but now it’s not okay because the Dems now proposed it?
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Even fewer are willing to claim they’re “liberals”.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Yeah, but astroturfing isn’t polling. You use (accurate) polling to drive strategy and build the appearance of momentum which may in fact drive public opinion, (which is then reflected in accurate polls). And you may spin polls (“the sample was skewed!). But polling is the result, not the cause of manufactured public opinion.
Bleeds Blue on October 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Jimbo, I take care of sick and hurt people. This is what I do. Some of them have VA, some have Medicare and Medicaid, some have insurance…I have never known anyone to be left to die because of a lack of health insurance. This is just a big fat lie.
–Right, Terrye, but how many of those people had $100,000+ bills that they had to pay (or declared bankruptcy) after the procedure?
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Blueblood, I will leave off the historical ignorance you show – they started with guns so that whenever someone objected to setting up the edifice it became, “go talk to Da Boys, around back. They’ll straighten everything out.” They built a police state on the bones of an anarchic violent gang, the bloodiest of the bunch that were all operating at the time. Mao did the same thing, as did pretty much every one of your revolutionary sweethearts.
The heart of the issue is far more serious. Once you start paying for my health and life, then you have the legal right to tell me how to live my life – what the hell, you own it, bought and paid for, and you (or at least, those in DC whom you support) clearly know better than I do what’s good for me anyway! Don’t drive too fast, don’t eat too much, don’t drink booze, don’t smoke, get more exercise, the works. It’ll get even more amusing when you start making policy decisions based on the “latest medical research,” half of which overturns itself on a regular basis. “Margarin’s good for you, now it’s bad for you, now some kinds are good and others are bad,” etc. The whole setup is sheer lunacy.
It’s not your life. It’s mine. And in a free society I will live it however I damned well please.
That’s the unspoken undercurrent to this whole argument, the leviathan in the room. Even the Congressional Democrats can sense it, and they know that if they deliver 300 million into the hands of a “knows better” Potomocracy, the rage at the ballot box in 2010 is going to be indescribable. It will make 1994 or 2002 look like modest gains – and that will deliver a newly-strengthened government to their bitter rivals in the Stupid Party. Were government as properly weakened compared to the States (and especially compared to the citizens) then this wouldn’t be a problem – but then again, the whole debate would be moot if that was the case, because it’d be obvious on the face of it that the government is arrogating power to it well in excess of that with which it may be trusted to not revert to a base tyranny.
So at this point, the best bet is to say to both parties: Go ahead. Pass whatever you want. Your replacements will repeal the whole rotten superstructure you’ve grafted onto our foundation, or they’ll be replaced even faster, I guarantee it. Make. Our. Day.
Blacksmith on October 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Jimbo:
Oh please, under the Baucus Plan there is no guaranteed coverage of half of the current uninsured.
My point is that no one is left to die because they do not have health insurance, and the plans the GOP has come as close as anything the Democrats have to covering this specific issue.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Ah yes, because declaring bankruptcy is obviously analogous to dying. Not to mention the original way we paid for things that were both so expensive and also so vital to life and limb (payment by installment) – we could never do that again, could we?
Blacksmith on October 20, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Would you rather be dead or would you rather have a bill you pay every month? You clowns want everything for free but the problem is nothing is free. Everything eventually trickles down to the middle class who get reamed paying for your shyt.
Screw off and accept taking care of yourself instead of having everyone take care of you.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Yes they are, hence the litany of apologies to Limbaugh by Republicans who have said critical things about him. And yes, Limbaugh is a race-baiting hack, a fact backed up by the not-so-liberal club of NFL owners rejecting him for his history of racially charged remarks.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM
You do have trouble with reality, don’t you.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Prove it.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:14 PM
No, Terrye, the Baucus bills require the insurance to be offered to people with pre-existing conditions. The GOP bills (except to the extent that the Health Exchange in the one bill is established) don’t do that.
The choice shouldn’t be between bankruptcy and death. I’ve paid health insurance premiums for 30 years under my employers’ plans, so I’m not a slacker. Yet that doesn’t count when I’m trying to buy individual insurance in the insurance market.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Jimbo:
My mother died back in 2000, but in 1997 she had an aneurysm. She was life lined from Oklahoma to Dallas and underwent brain surgery. A decade ago, that surgery and ICU costs were $357,000. She was not a rich woman, but no one considered refusing her treatment. She lived another 3 years in a convalescent center with 24 hour a day care. Under the kind of plan the Democrats would prefer, my mother would never have gotten that surgery. She would have been left to die.
The idea that you can give everyone all the care they need and want for no costs to themselves other than a small monthly insurance payment is absurd. There are a lot of people who end up filing bankruptcy on medical bills, because they can. If they don’t pay for the car, someone comes and gets it…if they don’t pay for the house, they face foreclosure…but the truth is they can file bankruptcy on medical bills and move on.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Here ya go, David Letterman style:
Top 10 Racist Limbaugh Quotes
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM
That “history” amounts to one statement over a period of 15 plus years.
Fewer statements of racial remarks then Hillary, and her Jew bashing, Pelosi and her denigrating racial remarks, Rev. Jackson and his Jew bashing, Obama and his white bashing and “teachable moment”….they, like you, were relying on lying quotes that were never confirmed.
So you think a lie is substance…typical liberal.
And yes, people do apologize when they mis-quote and mis-characterize, something foreign to a liberal.
right2bright on October 20, 2009 at 2:17 PM
What’s the color of the sky in your world?
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 2:17 PM
You don’t have to file bankruptcy. If you don’t have insurance and receive life saving treatment hospitals are more than willing to set up payment plans.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM
No, Jimbo, the GOP plan actually talks about creating a situation in which people can afford to pay for those plans by helping the people who need the help rather than coming up with some “plan” that requires insurance companies to take people with preexisting conditions without giving a passing thought to the costs of that.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Nor should there be.
If you wait until you get sick before buying insurance, then you don’t get insurance.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM
So bad samples are good, so long as they drive the policiy.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM
And here was their disclaimer…typical liberal, no proof, but they print it anyway.
So I could say you are a child molester, due to your history of lying I will investigate it, meanwhile you are a child molester.
right2bright on October 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Jimbo:
Death??? Are you insane? I know people who pay hospitals $50 a month just to avoid bankruptcy and court action. The idea that people are dying because of this is just stupid.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM
It apparently doesn’t matter to you that everyone of those quotes has been proven to be false. Any lie, so long as it advances the agenda.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Who is covered by Medicaid?
a capella on October 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Your link is wholly unreliable as it already contains the false quotes used by the media and the real race hustlers Sharpton and Jackson to prevent Limbaugh from buying into a NFL team.
You exhibit the typical leftist communist mentality that simply mentioning race is racist.
Try again, but first … look up the meaning of “racist”.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM
No, it took statistics at Moe Howard University. Larry Fine was its professor.
Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »