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 »
He’s a liberal, the charge is sufficient proof.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 2:22 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
–Giving states $300 million annually to help people in high risk pools with pre-existing conditions (about 10 million people in my count)? That’s $300/year. My family’s monthly premium would be about $2600. $300 is not much help; it’s merely a political ploy to say that the GOP “tried” to do something.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM
I knew it! The starfleet guy is a child molester! I could tell by his comments!
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Why am I not surprised that a liberal would promote lies, rather than the truth.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Who says they are not liberal? The attorney for the NFL players was a member of the Obama transition team. I can not think of his name now, but I read this not long ago…the point is there are connections between the NFL and high level Democrats.
No surprise there, they talk a lot about poor people and all that, but when it comes to rich athletes, rich entertainers, rich Wall Street tycoons, etc…it is astonishing how many of them are Democrats.
hypocrites.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Medicare would cover people with pre-existing conditions. But you need to be 65 for Medicare.
And Mark, I have purchased group insurance policies for 30 years from employers. I have not waited until I was sick to buy health insurance; it just hasn’t been insurance on the individual market.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Sure sounds like that’s what he is saying. Apparently, there are several forms of truth.
a capella on October 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Letterman? Snort.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Liberals actually believe that anytime someone says something they disagree with, it’s a lie.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Did I hear you say that starfleet is a child molester? I’ll have to tell my neighbor this.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I have clients younger than that on Medicare. In fact a lot of people with disability get Medicare.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Consider the source … that starfleet guy. I just found out he’s a child molester.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Then you have never been refused insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 2:27 PM
That is not who it works and you know it. The point is if people who have these kinds of conditions are put in high risk pools, it means lower insurance premiums for average people.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Here’s the Medicare eligibility conditions; you’re right, Terrye, it also covers people with disabilities:
Generally, you are eligible for Medicare if you or your spouse worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and you are 65 years or older and a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. If you aren’t yet 65, you might also qualify for coverage if you have a disability or with End-Stage Renal disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant).
Here are some simple guidelines. You can get Part A at age 65 without having to pay premiums if:
You already get retirement benefits from Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board.
You are eligible to get Social Security or Railroad benefits but haven’t yet filed for them.
You or your spouse had Medicare-covered government employment.
If you are under 65, you can get Part A without having to pay premiums if you have:
Received Social Security or Railroad Retirement Board disability benefits for 24 months.
End-Stage Renal Disease and meet certain requirements.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:30 PM
When the Soviet Union ushered in their “universal health care”, the first thing that happened was medicine went underground. The second thing that happened was people immediately became aware of the disparity in treatment. The politico’s and the connected received the best care while everyone either died or managed to recover themsleves.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Now read this real slow and study it….this is Rush predicting what Obama is leaning towards…see the last sentence? Now see the second sentence…even you should be able to understand this quote from your article saying Rush wanted segregated buses.
Now aren’t you the least bit embarrassed? Probably not, because a lie against a conservative is just as valid as the truth in your eyes….which is why we laugh at you and poke fun of you.
You crack me up…you are so stupid it is funny…
right2bright on October 20, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Jimbo:
Right now a young person could buy health insurance for himself under a high deductible plan for less than $100. That plan is his own, he does not have to have a job to get it…and if he keeps paying it on his own, then he will not lose it when he leaves a job. If people did that pre existing conditions would not be such a problem.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I’m sure there’s a connection or two, but seriously now, the club of NFL ownership is definitely not in the pockets of the Democrats. The reason why Limbaugh is being rejected by the NFL is entirely due to him being a lout who would only embarrass the NFL and tarnish its image.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Ignoring reality is the first, last and middle refuge of a liberal.
Yeah, but eventually he’ll grow up, and fairy tale time will be over.
WHAT! You mean these people had to actually..*GASP*…pay their bills? Oh the HORROR!!! That’s not right, someone ELSE should be paying those bills.
Every day is Christmas day in fantasyland.
xblade on October 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM
oh connections my behind. They are liberals and the reason they raised hell about this was that a bunch of race baiting hypocrites and liars like Sharpton and Jackson raised a stink about it. The truth is they approached Limbaugh and if they were not going to keep him in the deal they should have left him alone about in the first place.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Sorry pal, but child molesters can’t post on here…please move along.
right2bright on October 20, 2009 at 2:34 PM
This poll is so ridiculous. On one hand the majority say they like a public option, on the other hand most people think it is too much government, on the other they already have health insurance…read the thing to see just how absurd it is.
This is pushback for Rasmussen’s polls showing diminishing support for Obamacare.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM
The reason he was rejected was because of the false lies attributed to him and the self serving dust storm stirred up by Sharpton, Jackson, the left and the head of the players union who campaigned for Obama.
The NFL players do enough off the field to tarnish the image of the NFL. Having Limbaugh would only improve their image.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Also, the fact that Limbaugh has blathered so much about this on his show only proves how wise the NFL was to reject him. They have absolutely no need to put up with Limbaugh’s racial antics.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I didn’t spend a lot of time, but I already took apart two of the obvious quotes…they were not what was reported.
Starfleet knows that, and any defense now is a lie….a lying child molester…
right2bright on October 20, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Ain’t that the truth..
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I keep forgetting! He kept it hidden for sooooo long. But does it really matter? The communist democrats idolize child molesters, ref: Polanski.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:37 PM
right2bright:
True.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Liar.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM
No, it’s more like claiming two wrongs make a right. And last I checked, NFL players aren’t immune from punishment and/or fines for their misbehavior.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Look dude, you’ve got balls posting here after being exposed as a child molester and liar for the communist democrats.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM
So let me get this straight. NFL players can tarnish the image of the NFL all day and nite but it’s cool because they get punished and fined?
More communist democrat logic.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Terrye, Limbaugh really is the one responsible for his words and the NFL judged him accordingly. That this is a problem for dittoheads is obvious, but that doesn’t mean Limbaugh wasn’t judged fairly by the NFL and found wanting when it came to joining the owner’s club.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Jimbo:
It is not going to be free. No matter what kind of plan they come up with, someone, somewhere will have to pay. That is what you keep overlooking.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Giving states $300 million annually to help people in high risk pools with pre-existing conditions (about 10 million people in my count)? That’s $300/year. My family’s monthly premium would be about $2600. $300 is not much help; it’s merely a political ploy to say that the GOP “tried” to do something.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM
That is not who it works and you know it. The point is if people who have these kinds of conditions are put in high risk pools, it means lower insurance premiums for average people.
–No, Terrye, that is exactly how it works. Texas has a high risk pool for individuals who have been denied coverage in the invidiual market. The premiums under the high risk pool are 200% of the premiums in the invididual market.
From the GOP bill (Patients First Bill): SEC. 211. FEDERAL BLOCK GRANTS FOR STATE INSURANCE EXPENDITURES.
(a) In General- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, each State shall receive from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the `Secretary’) a block grant for the State’s providing for the use, in connection with providing health benefits coverage, of a qualifying high-risk pool or a reinsurance pool or other risk-adjustment mechanism used for the purpose of subsidizing the purchase of private health insurance.
(b) Funding Amount-
(1) IN GENERAL- There are hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $300,000,000 for each fiscal year for block grants under this section. Such amount shall be divided among the States as determined by the Secretary.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM
You consider judging a man based on lies fabricated by the communist left to be fair?
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Yep. Now if the NFL ignored such things you’d have a case. FWIW, I still think Michael Vick should have earned a lifetime ban from the league.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 2:43 PM
The NFL judged him? There was a collective vote or something? And which words are those? The real ones, or the big fat lies that people like you repeat all day every day?
And yet there is Reverend Wright, a real racist ranting like a loon and does it hurt Obama? Hell no. And Jackson talking about Himey town, does that hurt him? No…and Sharpton starting riots in which people get killed..is that a problem for him? Of course not.
I am not a big Rush fan, I do not always agree with the man..but he is not a racist. He was just let go to shut up screeching ninnies like you.
Meanwhile the NFL will get back to pushing family values with the National Felons League.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Last I checked, the owners of the NFL weren’t commies. Nor does Limbaugh’s rejection by the NFL make them commies, dude.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Why don’t any of the communist democrat bills open insurance competition across state lines? That would have an immediate effect in lowering prices, especially if combined with tort reform.
Apparently the democrats aren’t really interested in lowering the cost or expanding competition.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Jimbo:
It is not going to be free. No matter what kind of plan they come up with, someone, somewhere will have to pay. That is what you keep overlooking.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM
–And that’s why I’m in favor of an individual mandate with significant fines and penalties for people who don’t purchase insurance.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Yeah, wouldn’t want Rush to make the thugs, rapists, murderers and animal abusers look bad.
Do you ever take a break from your kool aid enema, or do you keep it inserted 24/7? I’m guessing you do make a little “alone time” for your Obama-shaped dildo. I can hear it now….mmm mmm mmmmm…Barack Hussein Obama
xblade on October 20, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Yep. That’s why Limbaugh was dumped from the group making a bid for the St. Louis Rams. Trust me, that didn’t happen for no reason, it happened because the NFL as an organization made it clear they wanted nothing to do with Limbaugh.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Darwin, read the Baucus bill. It allows competition across state lines (subject to a bunch of conditions, just like the GOP proposals) and it sets up a national health exchange that can offer insurance policies nation-wide.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I didn’t say they were child molester. I said the lies were fabricated by the communist left. Go back to Starfleet academy and take remedial reading.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM
That can not be constitutional. It just can not. What are you going to do, put people in jail for failure to have health insurance? And of course once the government gets rid of the big bad insurance companies then they will have the whole shebang to control.
bogus.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM
xblade, while I couldn’t care less about childish insults, I do think the management here at HotAir would like to keep the place at least somewhat family friendly.
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM
And exchange? These people can not even balance a budget. They screw up everything they touch. The last time I went to the DMV I thought I was going to have sit myself on fire just to get my license renewed with all the new rules and crap they have…and we are supposed to believe that the government can sit up exchanges where people can go buy insurance…blah blah blah.
They also said that if we liked our insurance we could keep it, and that is a lie. I know mine will go by the wayside. I have a Health Savings Accout.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:51 PM
It is consitutional, Terrye, if the US Supreme Court follows what it said in its decisions for the last seventy years. The Commerce Clause has been interpreted very broadly (the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows the US Congress to regulate commerce between states) and the US Congress passed an act in the 1940s effectively giving control of insurance to the states in many respects.
Not bogus.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Terrye, the exchanges won’t be run by the government, although they will receive start-up funding from the government.
The DMV is a disaster. Once I moved to Texas (and had to appear in person), I’ve tried to do everything else on line with the DMV.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 2:53 PM
The Baucus bill is not even a bill. It is a suggestion that includes a lot of ideas such as Medicare cuts, which the House has already said will not survive…that in turn puts it over budget.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Conditions? There should be no conditions. Just get the damn government out of the way. They’re the ones responsible for the high cost of health care today to begin with.
If we had free and open competition there would be no need for an “insurance exchange”. It’s obvious the conditions set will preclude any actual competition therefore allowing the communist democrats to declare it a faliure and force a public option down our throats.
There is absolutely no way the government can provide anything close to what people get today. Even if you have no money you still receive the best health care in the world.
The commies want to kill it. It all goes back to progressive ideology. Control the population, it’s makeup and size.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM
BS…There is nothing out there stopping exchanges being set up in the private sector right now..and those plans have to offer certain types of plans as well. Not just anything will do. And the government sits those standards. They do not need start up money anyway.
The truth is there are something like 1300 insurance companies out there right now, and if the government would just get the hell out of the way and let them do their thing all sorts of competition would result.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 2:56 PM
That remains to be seen. The truth is the Democrats have a long history of hiding behind the commerce clause. Mandating that every American buy health care insurance or face jail time is an assault on their civil liberties. I am not saying you have to pay for their care, but you can not throw them in jail or fine them for failing to buy insurance, that is crap. We have liability insurance for drivers, but driving is a privilege, not a right. However, all Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If you start jailing everyone without health insurance, be ready to build some new prisons.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Yet another lying ass poll. Just another way to give Bozo a chance to lie.
He lies by commission and omission. He’s an equal opportunity liar.
Bleeds Blue and Jimbo, Your insurance problems are not MY problem and you are a couple of jerks for expecting your neighbors to take care of you.
Move to China or France if that’s what you want.
This isn’t the USSA and I will do everything I can to prevent it from turning into that.
dogsoldier on October 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM
I saw this at Jules Crittenden and thought it was interesting:
This is what struck me the most about the poll, aside from the lopsided demographics, it was the internal contradictions.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 3:20 PM
BS…There is nothing out there stopping exchanges being set up in the private sector right now..and those plans have to offer certain types of plans as well. Not just anything will do. And the government sits those standards. They do not need start up money anyway.
–Darwin and Terrye, yes, there is a real problem in doing this in the private sector now: Insurance is regulated by individual states and you can’t offer plans across state borders.
And dogsoldier, I disagree with you. Please believe I will do everything I can to fight you and your fellow yellow bellied cowards to my dying breath. If you don’t like it, move to China or France yourself.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 3:24 PM
–
Insurance companies can set up exchanges right now. As for the states, well of course, they can always allow them to do business across state lines and that will only make it possible for more companies to compete. But you do not need a 1500 page health care reform bill to do that.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM
I looked at pollster.com and it was interesting to see the difference in the polls. This particular poll had Obama at 57. But CNN had him at 55. The other polls all had him between 45 and 50.
This is what they do, when the news starts to get bad, they just manufacture some good news.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Insurance companies can’t set up national exchanges now. No state allows that. And why would insurance companies want to set up something that competes with them, anyways? That’s sorta like Microsoft giving $100 million to IBM.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Right now, I can go to a County Health and Wellness Clinic, be charged $35 – $60, depending on income, and see a Nurse Practitioner. She’ll prescribe generic prescriptions, or get some medicine from the back, and help me order any maintenance medicine for a chronic illness, like diabetes or asthma, for $5 shipping from the suppliers. I had to go there last summer between jobs when exhibit high blood pressure symptoms. Reforming Healthcare, as you’ve been told over and over again, does not require The Federal Government to run 1/6th of our economy. There are Foundations and Church benevolencies already in place to help. Marxism is not the answer to any Healthcare Problems that might exist.
kingsjester on October 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Kingjester, that’s good for day-to-day problems, but it doesn’t cover surgeries, major medical problems, etc. We have nurse practitioners in Texas as well at many doctors’ offices handling these things.
Are you back from Oz? (I think you were down there a while ago).
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM
I was in Oz. The Scarecrow said to send back the Strawmen you’ve been using. He’s lonely.
kingsjester on October 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Deciding to fight communism is not an act of cowardice. Obviously you are a twelve year old to try to use that shtick. Didn’t work.
Fight me all you want, and you will lose every time, because your position has no merit, you resort to personal attacks to change the subject.
If you want communism move to a communist country. This isn’t it, loser.
dogsoldier on October 20, 2009 at 3:51 PM
That is odd, I heard some experts on health care talking about this the other day and they said that insurance companies can set up exchanges now. It is not illegal.
Ofcourse the states make it difficult, some more than others. But the point is that if all we need are exchanges, then who needs the government for that? We have coops for all sorts of things in this country. Just look at the Farm Bureau Co-op.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM
And why would the insurance companies want to do that? I don’t know, maybe for more customers…. but… since the government keeps telling us they do not want to ruin private insurance or take our insurance away from us I fail to understand why they would not want a co-op or exchange if the whole purpose of such an arrangement is just more competition.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 3:55 PM
So what? Taking over health care is not going to make a major surgery free. I have a client who had a broken neck and required a half dozen surgeries…he was not denied care even though he was young and uninsured.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Sorry for the late response, I was out buying ammo.
Anyways, Do you understand that the difference between Communism and Socialism is that Socialism is implemented on a gradual basis?
So whether that the end game is up to the Democrats, and they haven’t let us know what that is, so what are we to expect but the worst.
Juno77 on October 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Rasmussen now has the GOP with a five point advantage in the generic balloting. I wonder how this poll would have looked if the Republicans had a five point advantage.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Both of you have revealed your motive for supporting the government take over of the health care industry. You want everyone else to pay for what you (individually) will not.
How about we compromise? Let’s pass some meaningful tort reform and a pre-exisiting conditions clause. That would go farther to alleviate your issues than letting the government take control of health care.
rukiddingme on October 20, 2009 at 4:24 PM
So what? Taking over health care is not going to make a major surgery free. I have a client who had a broken neck and required a half dozen surgeries…he was not denied care even though he was young and uninsured.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM
–I’m not planning on having this be free, Terrye. I’m planning to pay insurance premiums.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 4:26 PM
This is really an asinine argument. Rush was dumped for one reason and one reason only. The NFL didn’t want to be on the front page of the news with some thing that might,operative word;might, further tarnish their already
tarnished image. The fact the the quotes attributed to Rush were proved lies, wasn’t material to their decision. Honor VS bucks? Honor loses every time.
oldernwiser on October 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM
How about we compromise? Let’s pass some meaningful tort reform and a pre-exisiting conditions clause. That would go farther to alleviate your issues than letting the government take control of health care.
–37 of the states, as of a few years ago, had already adopted at least a portion of tort reform. That’s why the CBO estimate for a national tort reform showed that would save only about 0.3% of the overall healthcare cost. What meaningful pre-existing conditions clause would you propose (that wouldn’t bankrupt the insurance companies).
And, by the way, I’m not in favor of a public plan–just exchanges run by private companies, so I don’t know what government “take over” you think I support.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM
If you want communism move to a communist country. This isn’t it, loser.
If you don’t like it, move to China or France yourself.
–When did France become a communist country? Hell, China isn’t really a communist country in most practical situations anymore.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Jimbo:
There is not Baucus bill, it does not exist in legislative language. It is deader than a doornail.
As for France, it seems to me that I remember a few years ago when thousands and thousands of French elderly died in a freaking heat wave because no one was taking care of them. They just dropped dead.
And why stop at France, I hear health care is absolutely free in North Korea.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 4:38 PM
And by the way, you can have something like this without any kind of overhaul of the entire health care system. Especially at a time when half the money we are spending is borrowed. Once the currency goes to hell and we turn into Argentina the old system we had for years will look pretty good to Americans.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 4:42 PM
And if those premiums go up by thousands of dollars a year for average families, do you think they will thank you?
BTW, most of the Obama supporters I know think this will be free to them, the rich will pay they say. I wonder where they got an idea like that?
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 4:43 PM
I knew this poll was really wrong. Now how do we get that news to the people? I can’t believe this is America anymore!
petunia on October 20, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Jimbo:
There is not Baucus bill, it does not exist in legislative language. It is deader than a doornail.
–Drudge had a link this morning to a 1600 page bill.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Jimbo:
The 1600 page bill is not the Baucus Bill. There never was a Baucus bill, it was not even written in legislative language. This is a different bill and once Harry Reid gets done with it, it will be even more different than it is now.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Remember a few months ago when CBS came out with a poll that showed 72% support for the public option? This bill is about as valid as that bill.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen, Fox and Gallup all say something else entirely.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/65027602.html.
Terrye, click on the link to see the text of the health care bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Already debunked last week, kid.
You were a lot funnier at Captain’s Quarters.
Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2009 at 5:20 PM
ABC responds.
Trent1289 on October 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Jimbo3, it’s my money, to spend as I see fit. It is most assuredly NOT your money. You didn’t do JACK to earn my money. I did. So give me one good reason why I should give a damn what you think I should spend my money on.
Blacksmith on October 20, 2009 at 5:49 PM
ABC/Post 10/18
CBS 10/8
AP/GfK 10/5
Ipsos/McClatchy 10/5
Gallup 10/4
Pew 10/4
NBC/WSJ 9/20
What do you know? “One of these things is not like the others…”
I don’t suppose ABC could be bothered to compare with the more recent figures each of those has put up, particularly Gallup?
Blacksmith on October 20, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Jimbo3, it’s my money, to spend as I see fit. It is most assuredly NOT your money. You didn’t do JACK to earn my money. I did. So give me one good reason why I should give a damn what you think I should spend my money on.
–Because I want to do so. If this passes and you don’t like it, you’ll be free to use your money to move to some other country, just as long as you do so before the bill becomes effective.
Jimbo3 on October 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Yeah, that was a NYT/CBS poll that sampled on population density. So you know, the coasts were over-sampled and it had a +15 Dem/Rep. make-up. More BS push-polling.
Jimbo3 – Why don’t you want to move to some country that already has “socialized medicine”, if you think it is so great? Gubmint can’t run things well or efficiently. What don’t you get about that?
JAM on October 20, 2009 at 6:19 PM
In other news, the chocolate ration has been increased again this month.
iurockhead on October 20, 2009 at 6:26 PM
At what point to citizens sue their asses for lying to pervert the system, AND to force them to reveal emails and conversations UNDER OATH via Discovery? We need to stop this systemic corruption.
marklmail on October 20, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Bozo’s propaganda is not working, although he IS using the Clinton playbook, which says tell really big lies and keep telling them, but the book doesn’t cover what happens when you do that all the time.
They lie by commission and omission. Everyone I have spoken to lately about Obamunistcare knows that it is a socialist takeover of our lives and they VOLUNTEERED that opinion unsolicited from me.
I have been pretty surprised by it. Haven’t seen a Bozo bumper sticker lately either, except the ones my sister in law sent over that read:
“Chains we can believe in” with Bozo’s logo and another one that reads:
“A Government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.” Thomas Jefferson
dogsoldier on October 20, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Yeah, that’s about what I thought. You have, in one sentence, destroyed the respect (as a principled, reasonable, and coherent liberal – contra Blueblood and Clown) that you’d gained from me. You don’t love liberty. You wouldn’t know liberty if it bit you, and it apparently was never a friend of yours. And since you’re not willing to extend it to every one of your fellow man, you damned sure don’t deserve to have liberty. You want to be the plantation-owner sitting on the porch, reaping the rewards while the rest of us peons do the work.
Well guess what, pal? It doesn’t work that way. It never has, and it never will. It’s why every time that idea’s been tried, industious people who actually work for a living have, if not physically then certainly mentally, said “you can have it brother – you just gotta grow it yourself!” It’s why the dictatorships have always fallen to the republics, it’s why the South fell to the North, and it’s why the less liberty a republic steals from its people, the better off (longer living, more prosperous, etc) its population is. It’s the root of what Heinlein called “bad luck,” and the rest of us know as the dark ages. Whether that’s what you think you want or not, that’s what you’re saying you want.
Take a look at Aeroflot, compared to Southwest Air. Take a look at Soviet medicine, compared to the Mayo Clinic. Take a look at the gulag archipelago, compared to San Quentin – or even Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay. How many prisoners (who, according to the Geneva Conventions, we weren’t even supposed to be taking!) have died in that prison? ZERO. But those gulags are the end product of what you want, pal. Take a look at what was the final straw in the collapse of the Soviet Empire. It wasn’t that the US military pounded the latest Soviet equipment into snail snot earlier that year. It wasn’t that their client states were falling – like dominoes? – earlier that decade. It was that they could not feed themselves – not without western aid, in both raw foodstuffs or in fuel shipments to move the food to where it was needed. The spectre of possible starvation killed the USSR just as it had given birth to it.
I don’t know if I’ll be around to say “I told you so” when you finally come to realilze what you’re asking for.
But I hope neither of us find out.
Blacksmith on October 20, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Why would anyone trust a poll taken by the Washington (macaca) Post and ABC (the home of the 2-1/2 hour infomercial for Obama’s health care initiative) News? These people know how to take a poll, they know how to skew the numbers, why should we believe, when their poll doesn’t match up with the others, their organization is that much better?
The White House wants to accuse Fox News of having an agenda. I would say that ABC and the Washington Post have an agenda, but I cite specific examples, the White House just says it.
bflat879 on October 20, 2009 at 7:52 PM
I thought this blog had better quality trolls.
Tyrone Slothrop on October 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Limbaugh, classless as usual:
Is is any wonder the NFL wanted nothing to do with Limbaugh?
starfleet_dude on October 20, 2009 at 8:55 PM
A sourced link would be nice…
Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Shatner here was with us on Captain Ed Morrisey’s previous blog, Captain’s Quarters. He was much funnier over there. But since he got everything he wanted, it’s an O’bama-Mas hangover. No more toys!
Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »