home

NBC Poll: Only 33% Favor Health Bill

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:12:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For those who think it is simple for the House to just pass the Senate bill, consider this:

[A]ccording to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll [. . .], only 33 percent say President Obama's health-reform effort is a good idea, versus 46 percent who consider it a bad idea.

It is simply ridiculous to argue that the simple political calculus is to pass the Senate bill as is. At the least, a play to the Democratic base, especially unions, through a reconciliation modification is essential.

Speaking for me only

< MA-Sen Predictions | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NBC Poll: Only 33% Favor Health Bill | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    God, if I had only been nicer (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:21:08 PM EST
    not used so many swear words, and been less of a feminist....this wouldn't be happening.  If only I had hated Firedoglake, none of this would be happening.

    If you (none / 0) (#10)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:05:04 PM EST
    curse you are a feminist?  Boggles the mind.

    Parent
    If I curse you (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    I'm a feminist.

    Parent
    Whatever Dems do now (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    will be seen as a failure, because the lead-up to this moment has been comprised of nothing but spinelessness and churlishness on their part. The old game of blaming the Republicans didn't work, so they switched to the other game of blaming the liberal base -- the citizens. What a stupid move that was. In the process, they have turned everybody off. And yet, if Coakley squeaks out a win today, they will have learned nothing.

    Once the House CPC members started backing away from their sternly worded letters to Obama and Pelosi, I backed away from them. I am not represented. The 67% of Americans who oppose the Senate health care bill -- whether they be Democrat, Republican, or Independent -- are making clear they do not feel represented either.

    The Health Insurance Companies could promise jobs (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    to anyone Democrats who vote for the bill and lose their seats.  This would make it easier for the Democrats to vote for the bill.

    So, does this mean that (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by dk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow and Olberman will go on the TV tonight to tell us that 67% of Americans, including Dennis Kucinich, are a bunch of Teabaggers?

    Top Comment of my Day (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:53:19 PM EST


    Parent
    and snicker while they say it, (none / 0) (#39)
    by observed on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:38:49 PM EST
    thinking they've pulled one over on us.

    Parent
    hmmmnnn (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:59:07 PM EST
    and the fact that Martha started dropping in the polls when she said she would vote for the POS legislation will be lost on the democratic party because passing anything and calling it victory seems to be all that matter to the Obama admin.

    Sure (none / 0) (#41)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:01:30 PM EST
    and Democratic leadership may conclude that healthcare reform can't be passed ever and that the party should move farther right and naturally assume that the base will come along because, after all, there's no place to go.

    Parent
    and i'm guessing (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by Turkana on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    that a public option is still well above 50%. funny what happens when you jettison the most popular parts of a bill.

    Take out the most popular (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    parts of the bill and replace them with one of the least popular idea - the excise tax on insurance plans. Way to go Dems. Rah, Rah, Rah. Hows that for being a mindless cheerleader.

    Parent
    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:24:30 PM EST
     the current mess is fixable unless they are willing to lose the one thing that they seem unable to: mandates. Mandates are a political killer without some sort of public option to go with them.

    strip out mandates (none / 0) (#45)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:20:12 PM EST
    and you'd also have to junk guarenteed issuance, which whould mena those with pre-exisiting conditions wouldn't be able to get insurance.

    Parent
    Right-o, which is why (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    there needs to be a public option.

    Parent
    Many (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:23:18 PM EST
    with preexisting conditions still aren't going to get coverage even with this bill so it's really a moot point.

    Parent
    Who knew... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    33% of the country worked in the insurance business...I thought it was around 1/6th, not 1/3rd, of our economy.

    What does this mean? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:34:02 PM EST
    President Obama's health-reform effort


    Yes, that always catches my eye too (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:50:38 PM EST
    not sure it matters whose name is on the mess at this point. He can't very well claim it is not his.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#30)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    And Max Baucus heaves a big sigh of relief...

    Parent
    Baucus was (none / 0) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:02:41 PM EST
    enabled by Obama.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by bocajeff on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:50:33 PM EST
    I think the poll reflects an answer to a different question. Get the economy moving, get people working, stop people from losing their homes and then you can do other things. But I digress...

    Maybe (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:54:00 PM EST
    And maybe our "representatives" from both parties have a decades-long record of caring more about their megamillion-dollar contributions (cough) from Wall Street, big pharma, etc., than they do about the issues that matter to the people who sent them to Washington, and whose wishes they clearly feel at liberty to ignore.

    Nope. It has to be more than that. (none / 0) (#29)
    by nyrias on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    Because if that is the only thing, the voters can easily vote those who are not on their side out of office.

    It has a lot to do with political apathy. That is the typical cultural characteristics of well-to-do nations. After all, why do I have to care about politics if it only marginally impact me (or if I think so)?

    Parent

    Doesn't work (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by hookfan on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:51:16 PM EST
    when the only viable replacements do the same thing.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#33)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    the voters can easily vote those who are not on their side out of office

    They can vote. Fat lot of good it does them. The corruption in both major political parties cannot be ended by elections alone.

    People are not stupid. They've done a cost-benefit analysis of voting. They know they're up against the special interests when it comes to getting their representatives to, you know, represent them.

    I can remember a time when ordinary voting citizens used the term "special interests" to refer to plutocrats. But for at least 25 years both political parties have been using the term to designate the sort of voting blocs that used to be considered natural Democratic constituencies.

    Apathy? Cynicism? Sure. Why not?

    Parent

    The one stat in polls like these that always piss (none / 0) (#3)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:33:38 PM EST
    me off is that 21% of the respondents apparently have no opinion, are not sure, are undecided...

    How the hell can more than 1 out of 5 either not know or not have an opinion about a 2,000+ piece of legislation that increases taxes $500 billion, cuts benefits $500 billion, and restructures American medicine?

    I have a couple of reasons (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    1. The news/pundits/many blogs/political leaders on both sides/industry reps almost never actually tell people what is in the bill or tell them contradicting things about the bill; and

    2. The news/pundits/many bloggers/political leaders on both sides/industry reps. constantly lie about the bill.

    It's very difficult to be informed in today's environment where lies and propaganda rule our world.  I actually credit the 21% with being smart enough to know that they don't know what to think.

    Parent
    Absolutely. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:07:41 PM EST
    The politicians have made these bills unduly confusing. Even many who have follow health care, and have followed this process closely, don't understand all the details.

    It's a no brainer: Make it too complex and confusing and the public ends up saying "No."

    Parent

    I agree with you and BDB on this particular bill. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    But it happens a lot, even with very simple matters where all info is available and have been discussed in detail, of great importance.

    I also think that if the Democratic party has been deliberately stealth in their approach, then the 21% should say they are against it.  Telling pollsters you are not sure because you do not know what is in it (and you do not know because the governing is deliberately not telling you) ought to be a GIANT red flag and reason enough to be opposed.

    Parent

    And you are surprised? (none / 0) (#22)
    by nyrias on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:45:48 PM EST
    Not every American makes politics the center of their lives.

    I am sure that you think they should know more. But I would bet money that more people cares about how LOST ends than how the HCR turns out.

    While that may be sad, it is the way it is and probably nothing you can do to change things.

    Parent

    About Lost (none / 0) (#54)
    by anniethena on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:13:35 PM EST
    Sure, more Americans should know about politics (and how it affects their lives) but at least Lost has inspired a lot of people to:
    -read books
    -learn about ancient mythology
    -become familiar with Enlightenment philosophers and other historical figures
    -investigate some scientific theories
    -think! I've read some very interesting discussions online that go way beyond who's a Jater/Skater...
    Now, the popularity of American Idol and other "reality"-shows like Bachelor/Bachelorette  scares me more

    Parent
    Hey, sorry to p*ss you off, but (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:32:46 PM EST
    I'm one of those, sometimes -- because I'm in a zipcode/area code that gets called a lot, polled a lot.  So sometimes I get cagey because I don't know who really is funding the poll.  Or sometimes it sounds like a Repub-funded poll, and I have fun messing with them.  Or sometimes, I don't trust how much of this stuff really is anonymous, as I know enough from my former marketing career to know that's not always so, and I have a government job now in which I have to attempt to appear objective.  Or sometimes the pollster says it will only take so many minutes, but it goes long, so I cut it off, and that messes up the rest of the answers.  Or . . . well, sometimes I'm just so weary of being so interesting to pollsters, while I'm trying to work at home, that I just say any old thing.

    Of course, sometimes there also are the polls so poorly designed that you can't figure out correctly how to answer.  Or sometimes, the polling is being done by somebody with such an accent from elsewhere that I give up.  Etc.

    Parent

    Oh, and I meant to add that (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:34:44 PM EST
    I know a lot of people who just feel that it's nobody's d*mn business, so they say they take the options of don't know or don't care -- because there is no option for mind your own business.

    Parent
    Krugman sez: Just Pass the Bill (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:00:28 PM EST
    "[The House] should do what's necessary -- not as a matter of political advantage, although it's probably better for them even in that sense, but because it's the right thing to do. Imperfect as it is, the Senate bill would save tens of thousands of lives, save many Americans from financial catastrophe, and partially redeem us from the shame of being the only advanced nation without some kind of universal care."

    Shorter Krugman: Mandates = Universal health care

    Krugman = economist (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    Krugman opinion < Political analysis and backlash of the unwashed already hurting masses.

    Parent
    Its the same reason (none / 0) (#46)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    Krugman was wrong on the stimulus- technically it was too small and too tax cut heavy but politically it was impossible to do the full package he desired, here technically he's right the current bill will save ten's of thousands of lives annually, but those lives just aren't as valuable as the political capital lost by passing the bill.

    Parent
    It was (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:25:25 PM EST
    not politically impossible. It's just that Obama would rather take the easy route.

    Parent
    I keep thinking of that movie "Dave" (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    where the real President was in a coma and they substituted a look alike....only in reverse.
    What did they do with the real Paul Krugman?  Is he in the basement of the White House with the ghost of Ansley Hayes, drinking and dancing in his bathrobe?

    Parent
    Krugman lost his last marble (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:14:00 PM EST
    Sometime ago.  Now he's bordering on delusional or he's completely in the tank for the insurance companies.

    I have to agree, he's stumbling around in his bathrobe, drunk as a skunk, and spraying stinky stuff everywhere.

    Parent

    Krugman is an academic economist and that is all. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    He is a damn good one, but only an academic economist.  His opinions on everything else are no more expert than yours or mine.

    Parent
    But he is offering an economic opinion (none / 0) (#32)
    by Manuel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:37:39 PM EST
    Forget for a moment his pundit political commentary where I agree that he is no better than anyone else.  Do you not believe him when he states.
    Senate bill would save tens of thousands of lives.

    Do you think he is just saying this without having looked at the numbers.  I guess it is possible but but I don't think he would be so cavalier.  I would expect he would have done his homework before making such a statement.

    Parent
    Paul Krugman has demonstrated (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:01:58 PM EST
    to me that he clearly has no comprehension of political consequences.  I'm not saying he sucks, what I am saying is that his grasp of economic consequences is brilliant, while his grasp of political consequences is horribly naive at best in many cases.

    Parent
    He's got a great track record; (none / 0) (#40)
    by observed on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:43:29 PM EST
    however, he's only human. I'm not bothered by his opinion on the matter. I appreciate his expert take. What I don't appreciate is his pettiness in dealing with opposition. The way he talked about Marcy Wheeler was way over the top.
    In academic fights, his nastiness is normal, but it does NOT play for some egghead to be using a column to tell his readers that they are stupid.

    Parent
    I agree about the pettiness (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Manuel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    Krugman is no saint.  He doesn't like to be questioned or called out.  It is a peronality flaw.  It is regrettable because it takes away from substantive discussion.  That is why it is important to separate the punditry from the substance.

    Parent
    The statement I quoted isn't about consequences (none / 0) (#43)
    by Manuel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    It is either true or it isn't.  Of course even if true it might not be the whole story.  For example, I could state something that is obviously true. "Getting out of Afghanistan will save American lives." People could counter argue that it might lead to a bigger loss of Aghan lives or that it would encourage more terrorist attacks but it would be hard to say that the premise is false.

    Just saying, "Krugman has lost it" or "Krugman doesn't know what he is talking about" isn't sufficient for me when it comes to the facts (pundit stuff is something else).  I want to know if he is factually correct when he states that the Senate bill will save lives.  If he is wrong, I want to see the evidence.  If he is correct, we can move on to the costs.  Each one can then come to a pricipled decision about the cost/benefit trade off.

    Back when Krugman was defending HRC against Obama on health care, many folks over at Orange were writing similar things to what I am reading now here.  Krugman hasn't changed.  It is the audience that has changed.

    Parent

    Actually Krugman now is not (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by observed on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:18:47 PM EST
    consistent with Krugman past.
    He was against the excise tax before; now he endorses it.
    Also, he and Gruber are being slick about the effect of the tax on wages---a point BTD has more than amply discussed elsewhere.

    Krugman is out of his depth here, politically.
    If the choice is the Senate bill or nothing, he's probably right. Those aren't the  only options---something a Coakley loss will make evident.

    Parent

    I view that as rationalization (none / 0) (#50)
    by Manuel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:50:38 PM EST
    People get inconsistent when they are rationalizing a decision.  It is totally fair to call them on it.

    I am fairly sure, however, that the Senate bill or the excise tax aren't Krugman's favorite form of health care reform.  I trust that he believes that the Senate bill is better than nothing.  I also think that the "Kill the bill" aedvocates are sincere in their dissent.  Questioning people's motives makes me very uncomfortable.

    I hope you are correct and we end up with something much closer to the house bill.  If that is the end result, all the angst will have been worth it.  I am afraid, though, that we could very well end up with nothing.  At that point, I hope (probably in vain) that noone indulges in finger pointing for we will all have lost.

    Parent

    exactly (none / 0) (#47)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:28:04 PM EST
    10,000+ lives annually is n othiong compared to the cost of passsing the bill- I mean who cares in people are alive if passing the bill costs us politically.

    Parent
    This bill is also capable of killing (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:31:19 AM EST
    people.  It is not a WONDERFUL piece of legislation.  It it was it wouldn't be having the problems that it has.  For profit insurance denials kill more people than anything out there right now and this legislation does nothing to seriously address the insurance denial scam.

    Parent
    An economic opinion? (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:01:58 PM EST
    That's not an economic opinion, for heaven's sake.

    Parent
    Of course it is (none / 0) (#58)
    by Manuel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:12:33 PM EST
    Economics play a part in actuarial analysis.

    Actuarial science includes a number of interrelating subjects, including probability and statistics, finance, and economics.


    Parent
    My father-in-law is an actuary (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:36:37 AM EST
    for General Electric.  I've never met anyone with less empathy for others or less social conscience :)

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:00:45 PM EST
    I don't know why people would think anything else, but apparently a lot of them do.

    I'm grateful to have somebody else besides me point that out!

    Parent

    Geeze, I thought I heard something like (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:19:04 PM EST
    this this AM, but it was really early and I was not caffeinated yet. Heck of a job . . . .

    And you are absolutely right. (none / 0) (#28)
    by nyrias on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:55:49 PM EST
    It is human nature. As long as we are in comfortable lives with little to worry about (most middle class Americans), why bother with un-fun things that I need to think about?

    Why not just do our jobs and then take up a hobby like LOST, or 24?

    Think about the last two elections. Bush WON despite Iraq. I bet the reason Obama won has a lot to do with the down economy (pain & fear works against the incumbent party) and the novelty of the situation.

    And before you say crony capitalism "destroys" anything .. short of a economic melt-down, people are not going to take notice .. not the middle class voter.

    While it may be infuriating to you, i just learn to live with it. You can't blame people to "pursue their happiness" in whatever way they want to, can you?

    I guess. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 03:26:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I wish these polls would reflect why people (none / 0) (#49)
    by DFLer on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:37:36 PM EST
    are against the bill.

    I did read one poll recently that showed people rejecting the bill, in the majority, because it didn't go far enough.

    Healthcare company campaign contributions (none / 0) (#55)
    by kidneystones on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:16:06 PM EST
    Funded Obama's campaign. Holder worked for a law firm that did a lot of big pharma business.

    The WH thought they could finesse a huge tax-payer handout to the corporations that let them buy the WH and sell it to Americans as 'health-care reform'.

    The WH created this debacle because they figured the easiest way to pass HRC was to sell out early and big to corporate bundlers.

    The WH then spent a year portioning out pork to bring individual Senators onside, all the while selling out voters and Dems. While this malfeasance was taking place, unemployment soared.

    Sensible Dems will be returning to their constituents hat in hand this spring vowing to do better, after killing this cruddy bill quick and dead.

    NBC Poll: Only 33% Favor Health Bill | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment