George Stephanopoulos grossly misrpresented a new ABC poll on public views about the health reform effort and Obama’s handling of that issue. Appearing on Good Morning America, George claimed that support for health care reform rose when you left out the public option.
The poll doesn’t say that and strongly suggests the opposite. Stephanopoulos owes the public an apology and a correction.
Watch this video.
In fact, the new poll shows continuing majority support — 55 percent – for having the choice of a public option. Moreover, when the public option is explained to those who first say they oppose it, total support leaps to 76 percent.
Thus, when the 42 percent who somewhat or strongly opposed the public plan were told that it would be a choice available only to those who currently don’t have insurance, half of them switched to support the public option, including a large increase in support from Republicans.
Here’s how the ABC pollsters describe their own results:
PUBLIC OPTION – On specifics in the health care plan, 55 percent support a so-called public option, with 42 percent opposed – slightly less opposition than in last month’s 52-46 percent division, but still shy of the initial reaction in June, 62-33 percent support.
That June poll found that support for a public option drops dramatically if it would put many private insurers out of business, as critics claim. This poll shows a flip side: Support for a public option swells to 76 percent if it were available only to people who can’t get coverage from a private insurer.[*] The increase is most dramatic among Republicans, a 32-point gain to 59 percent support; and seniors, a 33-point gain to 68 percent. Something like this was suggested by Obama, who said in his address the option would be available only to people who “don’t have”
insurance; herein may be a path to compromise.Some proponents of reform have described a public option as an essential element; Obama, on the other hand, has not. And as noted, without a public option, this poll finds support for reform’s remaining elements at 50-42 percent. (Despite some threats, support among liberals is nearly as high without a public option as with one.)
The most plausible interpretation of the poll is that many Americans mistakenly believe they would be forced to give up what they currently have and accept the government-sponsored insurance plan, because there would be no other choice. But when they’re reassured on that point, they overwhelmingly support having the choice of a public insurance option.
George’s unsupported claim adds to other Beltway efforts that distort the facts to further their own belief — that if only the Democrats would do what Republicans want, public support would go up. But the truth is, when the public learns that what the Republicans are saying is false, the support for Democratic proposals goes up, even among Republicans.
George Stephanopoulos badly distorted the findings of ABC’s poll on a key public issue. He and ABC owe the public an immediate correction and an apology.
________
To view the actual poll results, check out the pdf link in this article, especially questions 23, 24, and 25, and page 6.
* It’s unclear why ABC asked the question this way. The current bills limit access to the exchange, and hencee to the public option to those currently without insurance, the self-insured, and small businesses with only a few employees. None of the bills limits the public option only to "people who can’t get coverage from a private insurer." Did people interpret this literally? Or as a proxy for those who don’t currently have, or can’t afford, private insurance?
Update:
Dean Baker takes on the WaPo for the same misrepresentation.
Dean Baker ridicules NYT for noting Obama logically extropolates future outcome from past/current trends on folks losing health insurance





64 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Stephanapoulous owes more than one apology to the American public. I have heard him on several occasions allow McCain, Hillary Clinton and a few others repeat the unsubstantiated and endlessly repeated claims that Iran has or is after a nuclear weapons program.
Stephanapoulous along with Rachel Maddow, Olbermann Chris Matthews, David Gregory etc allow too many guest on their programs to repeat these unsubstantiated claims with absolutely no NO challenging questions…like where is the “hard evidence”
These talking heads did not learn anything from their journalistic failures in the run up to the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. Nothing
Well, except that the position of supporters of the PO is that it should be available to everyone, not just the uninsured.
But as for Stephanopoulos, what seriously do you expect him to say? He has gotten rich being a professional asshat spouting the Beltway bilge. It is why ABC hired him and keeps him on. It certainly wasn’t for his integrity and intelligence because he has neither.
Goerge is just carrying water for Rahm.
Stephenopoulos is not alone.
The news media which is largely funded by drug and insurance commercials has been on a subliminal campaign to brain-wash the public that the public option is a bad thing. This is the seediest example of journalism since early in the Bush campaign.
Aside from PBS coverage, there is nothing fair and balanced about any of the networks anymore. Not only are they incapable of reading polls, they ignore data that doesn’t fit their message.
there are a lot of crocodile tears being shed by journalists about the state of news in this country, yet examples like this only make people like myself applaud the disappearance of blatantly special interest politicking that passes as network news. It’s just creepy how uninformed these so-called insiders are.
- krasicki
http://region19.blogspot.com
Whether or not you believe it’s popular (I don’t think it is), the public option can’t garner the votes in the Senate or perhaps even the House. What Republicans are fearful of is that the “trigger” will be such a short fuse that it will go into effect anyway. The trick will be building in safeguards so states themselves make that determination, not the Federal government. Of course, a lot of folks don’t want any bill under those circumstances, both progressive and conservatives.
Well, accurately measuring the popularity should not be a casualty of reporting congressional sentiment.
I think Obama is trying too hard by two to get the impression of republican support. Quite honestly, I could do without the sugar-coating. Get the job done. That means get the public option passed.
Disney has a relationship with pharmaceutical giant Procter and Gamble. Steph is not going to cross The Mouse.
Stephanopoulos is quite aware of who pays his salary, and he will not offend his fat masters.
Spotlighted to a bunch of ABC people. May not help, but couldn’t hurt if they know that people are watching and not too stupid to figure out what they are doing.
Jesus. bitchin about KO and Rachel. who do you think you are going to get, Jack Reed?
OT here is the link to Obama’s speech on financial reform. I am currently reading it but this bit jumped out at me.
Does this describe your experience or what you have seen in the economy? It is like an alternate reality is being described, the one with the happy faces.
The Blue Dogs have to worry. Their re-election depends on it. They know a lot of folks are going to single-issue vote on this and cap-and-tax.
What is funny about your remark is that you criticize the practicality of the PO because it can’t pass in the Senate but then completely miss the practical political reality that triggers don’t mean a damn thing.
If I fed trolls, I would point out that yeah, some of us will be “single-voting” on this issue – against anyone who shoots down a public option, e.g., Blue Dogs.
I disagree with you when it comes to Rachel. She never let’s these goons get away with their lies. Just ask Pat Buchanan, Tom Ridge and even that idiot Joe Scarborough. Keith doesn’t have these idiots on his show.
And the difference between the Blue Dog Republocrats and the Republicans is….????
These people infiltrated the democratic party during the Bush years precisely to subvert the Democrats. Their rhetoric is always that the “majority of the country” is against, for example, the public option. Trouble is they aren’t talking about voters, they’re talking about geography and government pork dollar allocations.
I know three people/couples who have bought a home for the first time because of the tax credit (one just last week). I know two people who bought “American made” cars under Cash for Clunkers. My bank, who had warned about cutting credit limits on Lines of Credit, took some Bailout money and decided not to cut limits to the level of balance (very important for my biz).
So I guess, yes. That statement does seem to reflect “reality” for me. Now onto re-regulation, which is exactly how Obama said he was gonna do it….First-Stabilize. Second-Fundamental changes.
And yes, I’m glad that Howard Dean pointed out what David Sirota pointed out on salon.com. The trigger would never come and he gave as an example, Medicare Part D which he and Howard Dean said has a trigger that has not been reached. It’s the perfect argument for progressives to point out and beat them over the heads with, particularly if they are blue dogs who voted for that turkey. The progressives could use that as a way to discredit the blue dogs for supporting something that has already proven it doesn’t work.
Even NPR/PBS allow GOPers to come on, rant with their talking points and offer no challenges at all. It’s almost like they want to be polite above everything else and calling some one out on an obvious (or unobvious) statement is just too rude… I mean, you don’t think these people are actually journalists, do you?
mediamarv, who knows better.
Hugh, and bonkers – Yeah, it isn’t doiing enough (especiallly in the program to re-do mortgages, mostly because of bank intransigence) but it is having an effect, keeping things from being even worse than they would have been.
I’m glad bonkers has some concrete examples.
I know many cars were sold here and houses under $200,000 seem to be going fast, purchased by folks taking the credit.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/bu…..in_SA.html
I simply can not see any misrepresentation.
If Hillary had gotten elected president we would have seen her sign a health care reform bill (with strong PO) on January 21.
I love it! This is off topic but, I just read that the school in Arlington Texas that did not show Obama’s speech to school children last week had accepted an invitation to hear President Bush speak at a ceremony that will open the new Dallas Cowboy’s stadium. After facing critisism for this “blatant double standard” they have now cancelled this trip. SCORE ONE FOR OUR SIDE…FINALLY!
My wife is from Ohio and on her recent visit she said that the Clunkers program has resulted in many Chevy auto workers being recalled because the Cobalt was a popular option as a replacement for the clunker.
Sustainable? Unknown. But certainly a shot in the arm for some auto workers in Ohio.
If my bank would’ve cut my LOC to where the balance is, I’d probably be closing up shop and trying to sell my house right now, and if it didn’t sell soon, then I’d likely be a foreclosure stat. Working on improving that situation now, but definitely needed the breathing room these last few months to do that.
Both of those are temporary buy forward programs that create sales now but suppress them later. They are stopgaps in other words not signs of recovery. You seem still in a place where you will support Obama at any cost. I guess your community is adding jobs then and that your friends are not only finding jobs but better paying ones, and of course not just your friends but your whole community and no doubt your state and region as well.
I finished reading Obama’s speech on financial reform. It is equal part pap and BS. The take home message is that there will be no significant financial reform coming out of this Administration at this time.
Bull I have heard Rachel allow people to repeat the Iran ‘wants to wipe Israel off the map” horseshit. I have also heard Rachel allow people to repeat that Iran is or is after a nuclear weapons program. Rachel does make mistakes. She is not omnipotent.
the one time she reported about the 9 time delayed Aipac trial being dismissed she made a lark of it. As if it was “much ado about nothing”
That would be Bob Woodwards statement about the Plame outing while the investigation was going on
she also allowed Tom Ridge to get away with spinning the pre war inteligence ‘the best we had at the time”
This was horseshit. Scott Ritter, El Baradei many others questioned the validity of the pre-war intelligence. Rachel somehow failed to mention that we have not seen one person held accountable for the false pre-war intelligence. Not one. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead injured and milllions are displaced due to the use of the cherry picked and false pre-war intelligence
She could have just whispered the Niger Documents
Support for a public option swells to 76 percent if it were available only to people who can’t get coverage from a private insurer.
This provision makes the public option largely useless for keeping the insurance companies honest, ISTM. Letting anyone who wants it buy in is the only way private insurers will have to compete with it. Otherwise, it just becomes the dumping ground for all the people they don’t want to insure.
Yes because the GOP as well as many of the Dems who helped to defeat her the first time would be much more receptive? That was the real reason that Limbaugh wanted Hillary to win the primary. Because he knew that the right would have pulled out their Clinton playbook complete with her husbands business ties to many of the people and countries that the right just loves so much. I don’t think so!
I just spoke with an aide in Rep. Marcia Fudge’s office to say that I would rather she voted no on any bailout and forced purchasing of health insurance. That she must hold firm on a robust public option if voting for an insurance mandate.
Especially this one who just stops by, leaves a fresh loaf to stink the place up then splits.
Sorry but, I stiil see Rachel and Keith as the best of the lot. You’re entitled to your opinion as I, am to mine!
Are you planning to run for office or getting a media host position?
Yes, the limits aren’t the point here. What’s happening here is that people aren’t clear about what the propsal is.
The House Bill, e.g. limits eligibility initially (allows expansion later) to the uninsured, self-insured and those businesses with only a few employees. What the poll should have done is to ask whether a public option for those people makes sense, but instead it asked about those who can’t otherwise get insurance. How did people interpret that?
Did they equate that with the currently uninsured? Or with those who, while they could purchase insurance on their own, can’t afford it? Or those who don’t get insurance at work?
As I said in the post, I suspect people are mixing up a mandate to purchase insurance, with a restriction to having only a public plan. And if you eliminate that misconception of being forced to purchase government insurance only by asking about only those who can’t get private insurance, then people strongly support a public option.
don’t give yourself a stroke
I would love to quote from the judge’s decision in the SEC-BAC case because it really sizzles but the format doesn’t allow me. But here is the link to the decision:
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes……/#decision
the deplorable washington post drawing corporate friendly conclusions from their health care poll and promoting another sell-out to corporate interests:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
It’s what they do, they are the post …
“But after a summer of angry debate and protests, opposition to the effort has eased somewhat, and there appears to be potential for further softening among critics if Congress abandons the idea of a government-sponsored health insurance option, a proposal that has become a flash point in the debate. The gap in passion, which had shown greater intensity among opponents of the plan, has also begun to close, with supporters increasingly energized and more now seeing reform as possible without people being forced to give up their current coverage.”
THE POST DOES NOT SAY IT, BUT CLEVERLY IMPLIES IMO THAT THE PUBLIC OPTION FORCES PEOPLE TO GIVE UP THEIR CURRENT COVERAGE.
“But it is the public option that has become the major point of contention, with support for the government creation of an insurance plan that would compete with private insurers stabilizing in the survey after dipping last month. Now, 55 percent say they like the idea, but the notion continues to attract intense objection: If that single provision were removed, opposition to the overall package drops by six percentage points, according to the poll.
Without the public option, 50 percent back the rest of the proposed changes; a still sizable 42 percent are opposed. Independents divide 45-45 on a package without the government-sponsored insurance option, while they are largely negative on the entire set of proposals (40 percent support and 52 percent oppose). Republican opposition also fades 20 points under this scenario.”
SO, OPPOSITION DROPS BY 6%, BUT SUPPORT ALSO DROPS BY 5% IF THE PUBLIC OPTION IS REMOVED (FROM 55% TO 50%). THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE A VIRTUAL WASH, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE MARGIN OF ERROR IN POLLING, BUT THE DEPLORABLE POST CONCLUDES THAT THIS IS A MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BECOZ IT IS THE DIRECTION THEIR CORPORATE PALS FAVOR.
NOTHING LIKE TWISTING THE STATS TOWARDS YOUR AGENDA AND PROMOTING THE NONSENSE THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A MAJORITY YOU SHOULD STILL CATER TO THE MINORITY … BUT THE DEPLORABLE POST PROMOTES THAT ONLY WHEN THE MINORITY SHARES THE INTERESTS OF THEIR CORPORATE SOCIAL PALS.
Z
Ahhh. The Potemkin economy. I want to live there.
What’s worse, when they say that opposition drops by 6% when the public option is dropped, they are only counting people who are opposed or undecided about the public option. They simply assume that the entire 55% who support the public option would support a bill that doesn’t have a public option–because they never asked them.
Scarecrow is right about Americans not wanting to put private insurers out of business, except it’s mostly Republicans and senior citizens who feel that way. From the poll’s narrative lead-in:
This is easy to understand. Republicans don’t want this sector of free enterprise to lose its captive customer base. Cagier ones also know that “the uninsured” are generally in poorer health and that taking them off their insurers’ rolls will keep their premiums down; they can then fight against subsidies in ways they know how to do. The seniors’ position is also understandable: it reflects the view of grandparents whose kids don’t call them and bring the grandkids to visit enough. They don’t want government funding cutting into their Medicare. Hence the paradoxical screed about keeping government’s hands off of Medicare. It’s not totally irrational.
Now if I were President Obama, I would have anticipated this long ago and have headed it off, first, by muzzling Rahm Emanuel and, second, by framing the issue in a way that says to Republicans, “You lost!” and to seniors, “These are your children and grandchildren! Maybe they’ll call more if they can afford to because their premiums are reduced. Maybe they’ll drive over if they’re less worried about getting into an accident and going bankrupt paying the bills!”
And to both, but mostly to the rest, I’d have said it’s America, where we believe people should have the best insurance their money can buy as they see fit to spend it. To neuter the scare about creeping socialism I’d have made it abundantly clear that our healthcare economy is mixed. We have private insurance but also public programs galore, not just for seniors but for veterans, Native Americans, and those thankless grandchildren. I’d have put this in a world context: we are like everyone else. The New York Times’ studies of other countries shows high percentages of private healthcare spending: Canada 30%; Japan 18%; France 20%.
This is not about socialism but about the mix, and the mix should be determined by the sum of our individual choices. Vote with your gut! With your idea of how best to see to your gut! That will determine the long-term mix. That and nothing more!
The reason I’d have taken Emanuel to the woodshed — well, I won’t list them all, but one is that the only winner for Obama in the long run was to get in the face of the private insurance companies and bring their servile teabagging drones to the point of seeing how scared their masters are and how, if they’re that afraid of a public option, they should find another line of work. We’re happy to see them find outlets for their less fear-ridden talents. There’s plenty to do here.
Where the polls end up is a function of how the bully pulpit is used. Our president is shy about mounting it and staying on it. Sometimes I think Dick Cheney sprained his back on Inauguration Day because he was physically removing it from the White House.
I simply responded to this question you asked:
Sorry my reality doesn’t fit into your storyline.
And yep. Got it. Stop-gap….temporary fixes. Massive troubles still ahead? Check. I suppose that’s why Obama said these exact same things all along, including today, and why he’s going to push for major financial sector reforms to be enacted yet this year because things are so precarious and urgent. Oh, and he threw in some chastising of how the big bankers have behaved since the Bailing Out started, and how that now gives him leverage to push for more major changes. Just as many of us predicted.
By the way, even though I campaigned hard against Bill Clinton in the Dem primaries in 92, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for 1-2 years before concluding my suspicions were correct. Obama is much more promising than Clinton was, so realizing how big of fights we have yet ahead to tackle these incredible problems that you rightly highlight, I am motivated and excited by the chances we all have to make some major institutional changes. It’s up to us to stay motivated and active to continue building a movement for these issues like single-payer and major financial reform.
Or I suppose we can all sit at computers and say the exact same thing 75 times each and every day. That’s what Rosa Parks did, isn’t it? And Susan B. Anthony? MLK was great at providing links, wasn’t he?
I thought, and I am open to correction (IMO they wrote this piece with a goal in mind and obfuscated information that doesn’t support their agenda), that what these means is that the support drops from 55% to 50% without the public option.
“But it is the public option that has become the major point of contention, with support for the government creation of an insurance plan that would compete with private insurers stabilizing in the survey after dipping last month. Now, 55 percent say they like the idea, but the notion continues to attract intense objection: If that single provision were removed, opposition to the overall package drops by six percentage points, according to the poll.
Without the public option, 50 percent back the rest of the proposed changes; a still sizable 42 percent are opposed. Independents divide 45-45 on a package without the government-sponsored insurance option, while they are largely negative on the entire set of proposals (40 percent support and 52 percent oppose). Republican opposition also fades 20 points under this scenario.”
Z
George’s next memoir should be titled “My Life as a Wuss”.
Exactly. As I pointed out in your thread following the Obama speech, he falsely represented the PO in current bills in just the same terms as this poll question, ie, covering only people who without insurance. The PO in HR 3200, as weak and constricted as it already is, is actually more robust than Obama’s description, since it would be open to exchange-eligible individuals regardless of whether they currently carry a plan.
Which leads me to wonder whether Obama was just lying to placate conservatives, in the same way as the reframed poll question placated some Republicans, or whether he was signaling that the final bill he would sign will actually limit the PO to people without insurance.
You’re right, there’s no way to interpret it but that the majority like a plan with a public option better than a plan without one. (Unless you only read the article and not the poll itself.)
and Rahm is the spokesperson for Obama
Here is the full poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..9091400007
It’s even worse than I thought. I don’t even know what the basis is for their claim that “If that single provision (government sponsored public option) were removed, opposition to the overall package drops by six percentage points, according to the poll”. From questions 22 and 23, the opposition appears to stay the same while he support drops w/o the public option.
22. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
——– Support ——– ——— Oppose ——– No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
9/12/09 55 33 22 42 11 31 3
8/17/09 52 33 19 46 11 35 2
6/21/09 62 NA NA 33 NA NA 5
23. Say health care reform does NOT include the option of a government-sponsored health plan – in that case would you support or oppose the rest of the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?
Support Oppose No opinion
9/12/09 50 42 8
Z
The poll got garbled up, but what it said on 22 and 23 is that the opposition was 42% with and without the public option, while support dipped from 55% to 50% without the public option. The hacks at the washington post thus conclude that there is more support if the public option is dropped. This should be unbelievable but it’s just par for the course for the propagandists at the post.
Z
I’ve bolded the important data …
Here is the full poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..9091400007
It’s even worse than I thought. I don’t even know what the basis is for their claim that “If that single provision (government sponsored public option) were removed, opposition to the overall package drops by six percentage points, according to the poll”. From questions 22 and 23, the opposition appears to stay the same while he support drops w/o the public option.
22. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
——– Support ——– ——— Oppose ——– No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
9/12/09 55 33 22 42 11 31 3
8/17/09 52 33 19 46 11 35 2
6/21/09 62 NA NA 33 NA NA 5
23. Say health care reform does NOT include the option of a government-sponsored health plan – in that case would you support or oppose the rest of the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?
Support Oppose No opinion
9/12/09 50 42 8
The poll got garbled up, but what it said on 22 and 23 is that the opposition was 42% with and without the public option, while support dipped from 55% to 50% without the public option. The hacks at the washington post thus conclude that there is more support if the public option is dropped. This should be unbelievable but it’s just par for the course for the propagandists at the post.
Z
Hugh, Do you think Obama is “lying?” -:)
What makes you think so? On January 21st, no bill was out of committee yet.
I’m glad you got a break bonkers. But I think that many businesses are still finding it difficult to get credit, at least according to what I hear. The bank bailout is far from trickling down to Main Street.
The poll’s framing is flawed. They asked:
They could have asked:
I’ll bet the response would have been somewhat different.
Surveys are very difficult to interpret because they are so dependent on the framing of the questions. The answers people give to questions moreover are often very bad indicators of how people will behave or the long-term attitudes they will develop. That’s why politicians have such a tough time forecasting where the public will end up on an issue.
People may say that they oppose a PO, but if the PO is the only measure being suggested that could possibly produce any downward pressure on accelerating insurance price inflation, then politicians are in the situation that while their poll may say that only 55% support the PO, and that much more support it when it is restricted only to those who cannot et insurance, it will be very dangerous for them to pass that kind of PO, because when insurance costs continue their runaway increase under a health insurance reform that has a weak PO of this sort, the politicians will be blamed even though a PO restricted to those who cannot get insurance, amy have been more popular than one which is not so restricted.
Rachel and Keith are the best of the lot. But that doesn’t mean that they’re tough enough, does it?
I’m guessing that they are keying their contentions off of this question and comparing it to question 22:
16. 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)? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
——– Support ——– ——— Oppose ——– No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
9/12/09 46 30 16 48 12 36 6
8/17/09 45 27 18 50 10 40 5
22. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new
health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?
Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
——– Support ——– ——— Oppose ——– No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
9/12/09 55 33 22 42 11 31 3
8/17/09 52 33 19 46 11 35 2
6/21/09 62 NA NA 33 NA NA 5
Even using this comparison, the post has completely ignored that while opposition dropped 6% between the
two questions, support dropped 9%, so matter what they are being disingenuous IMO.
Of course, what people know about the proposed changes are a variable, the better way to gauge public opinion on the public option IMO, if you truly wish to gauge it, is to again compare questions 22 and 23:
22. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
——– Support ——– ——— Oppose ——– No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
9/12/09 55 33 22 42 11 31 3
8/17/09 52 33 19 46 11 35 2
6/21/09 62 NA NA 33 NA NA 5
23. Say health care reform does NOT include the option of a government-sponsored health plan – in that case would you support or oppose the rest of the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?
Support Oppose No opinion
9/12/09 50 42 8
Z
I think there is no one correct way to ask the question, but only different alternative framings. I’d like to see more surveys use alternative framins of critical issues at different points in surveys. That would be a lot more work, but it would produce a much more rounded view of what people think.
“it would be a choice available only to those who currently don’t have insurance”
This is supposed to boost support? Why?
I don’t know anyone that has actually used their insurance who is happy with it. Everyone that I know that has had a major illness in the family is ready to dump private plans pretty much sight unseen in favor of a public option, if only to stick the richly deserved sharp stick in the insurance conspiracy’s collective eye.
Moreover, those that stop and think about it realise that the public option cannot keep insurance companies honest if it is not an option, not a competitor, and thus not a threat.
correction:
Even using this comparison, the post has completely ignored that while opposition dropped 6% between the two questions, support gained 9%, so matter what they are being disingenuous IMO.
Time to call out Stephanopoulos for his intentional misstatement.
why not adopt the strategy of faithful Bush followers, and simply give your Leader increments of 6 months for his marvelous plans to be proposed, and given time to succeed.
They were called ‘Friedman units’, then.
what if Single Payer was explained to them, and support for it was 63.2%, would FDL tout that poll?
Curiously my list of Obama scandals just hit 75 today. What all different I suppose, as scandals, you could say they are all the same. Much of we, or I, do in the blogosphere is to set the record straight, often to make a record, so that in the future when our elites and those who support them say, “No one could have foreseen,” I and others like me will be able to call them out on their lies and self-serving revisionist histories.
I so agree. Obama is so full of warm air, not even hot. He is no longer my president. period…….
I do what I can. Bet I’ve gotten through on Rehm TOTN, C-span etc close to 400 times since the 2000 supreme court selection. Now if they would just give me a spot, I would not turn it down. (tee hee)
I know. Expecting the MSM to ask challenging questions when unsubstantiated claims about Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program is just asking too much.
I should get back in the bubble with the rest of the folks who could give a rats ass that our country is responsible for over a million deaths in Iraq, who knows how many have been injured and 5 million refugees.
If I follow your advice just close my mouth, thoughts and put the pedal to the metal and get to the mall.
Who gives a flying fuck about the Iranian people near the sites that the neocons would like to bunker bust after the first of the year along with the Israeli government.
Next stop Iran folks the stage is being set and the MSM is going along Again