Are Democrats really deaf to popular consensus on health care?
At the Washington Examiner, Susan Ferrechio sums up yesterday’s health care summit:
Nothing at the summit convinced Republicans to put aside their demand that Democrats scrap the current $1 trillion bill and start over. And Democrats appeared unmoved by a GOP plea to scale back the bill and incorporate ideas like tort reform favored by Republicans.
Democrats remain poised to move ahead on the Senate health care reform bill, which would mandate insurance coverage, expand Medicaid significantly, and use tax increases and Medicare cuts to pay for it.
On the same web-site, Ferrechio’s colleague David Freddoso links a Gallup poll showing significantly more people oppose the Democrats’ proposed health care overhaul than support it, with a solid majority oppose Democrats using reconciliation to advance their bill. Indeed, said Gallup poll registers higher public support for the plan (42%) than do most surveys which show it polling in the 30s, with most registering opposition at or above 50%.
And Democrats press forward with the same ol’ plan when as I noted earlier this week, “more than two-thirds of Americans believe Congress should either start all over on health care reform or do nothing.”
It’s all about appeasing the party’s base. And showing that the president can get something done, even if it’s not what the American people want.
22 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
And Dems accuse their opponents of being ideologues!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2010 @ 2:41 pm - February 26, 2010
P.S. What happened to Talking Points Tano?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2010 @ 2:42 pm - February 26, 2010
don’t forget that there’s a large percentage of folks who object to the health care reform bill because they feel it doesn’t go far enough. Only one poll actually asked about this and nearly 50% of those objectors wanted a public option or single-payer system. Bottom line: compromise is passe due to the party of NO. The democrats should shove this bill through any which way they can and then step back and watch the GOP continue to implode.
Comment by buckeyenutlover — February 26, 2010 @ 3:09 pm - February 26, 2010
And by “continue to implode” he means continue to rack up House and Senate seats.
I wonder what the polling would be if people were asked, “Do you favor adding another two and half trillion dollars to the debt to pay for health care?” Or, “Do you favor a massive tax increase to pay for universal health care?” That’s always been the issue. Free health care sounds great, until you start asking people how much they are willing to give up in order to pay for it.
This turned out to be a pretty short decade, didn’t it?
Comment by V the K — February 26, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - February 26, 2010
You do realize, don’t you, that you’re telling us the liberals don’t give a damn about what you want either??
I disagree with Dan. I don’t think they’re appeasing their base so much as they are making a desperate power grab.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 26, 2010 @ 3:50 pm - February 26, 2010
Its more that they have nothing more to lose at this point, since its already been voted on technically and the votes are in. At least if they get something passed, they can motivate Democrats and at least have something to show for their efforts. Its some kind of Thelma and Louis theory…you have gone this far might as well go all the way…even if thats off a cliff.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — February 26, 2010 @ 4:20 pm - February 26, 2010
#4: “This turned out to be a pretty short decade, didn’t it?”
V the K, it’s going to get even shorter when Obama goes from being “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 to being a “true believer” in middle class tax increases overnight. Not that this will have any effect on buckeyenutslobber–only an individual that has led a tax-free life could be so obnoxious and aggressive when it comes to entitlements.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-11/obama-agnostic-on-deficit-cuts-won-t-prejudge-tax-increases.html
Comment by Sean A — February 26, 2010 @ 4:42 pm - February 26, 2010
There are different polls that show different results.
The latest Kaiser HealthCare poll shows support and oppostion tied at 43%.
A recent Newseek poll showed opposition 9 points up – but then they asked about a list of specific provisions in the bill, and found majority support for 6 out of 8. Then they reasked the general question, and found overall support 6 points higher than opposition.
There is no point for us to argue which poll is right or wrong. Each side has its own hypothesis, and seems willing to roll the dice. The Dems are convinced that they have at least half the country with them, and once it is passed and the propaganda cools, then a majority will realize the virtues of the bill.
If they are right about that, then they will be rewarded at the polls. If wrong, then they will suffer. Thats the way it is supposed to work.
Comment by Tano — February 26, 2010 @ 5:16 pm - February 26, 2010
#8: Tano, do any of the polls factor in a middle class tax hike for households earning less than $250,000 per year?
Comment by Sean A — February 26, 2010 @ 5:40 pm - February 26, 2010
I think vegetarians should help the country pay for food inspection.
I think corporate employees should help pay for farm subsidies.
I think pedestrians should help pay for national highways.
I think urban dwellers should help pay for national parks.
I think people without children should help pay for public education.
I think people opposed to war should help pay the military.
I think people with smoke alarms should help pay for fire departments.
I think safe drivers should pay for auto insurance.
I think young, healthy people should have to pay for health insurance. I think that a mandate which requires everyone to buy health insurance is a good idea. I don’t think anyone should simply assume they will be healthy forever and opt of of the system just because they are young or have good genes. Everyone should buy insurance. Yes, that means pitching in and giving your money to the fat and old, but I think that the common welfare we have pledged to each other in our Constitution requires we all have to pay for health insurance so the premiums are fair.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 26, 2010 @ 6:51 pm - February 26, 2010
Funny how the founders never paid for health insurance. I guess they disagreed that the Constitution or the general welfare required it.
I think I’ll go with their reading thanks.
Comment by American Elephant — February 26, 2010 @ 8:44 pm - February 26, 2010
good points Ash – especially since we have a very deep seated moral sense that when people get sick or injured, we will make sure they get the treatment that they need – whether or not they have insurance.
Except for Tim Pawlenty that is….and maybe this is the future of conservatism…LINK
Comment by Tano — February 26, 2010 @ 9:12 pm - February 26, 2010
#11: That’s a very quaint notion, AE, but I’m, afraid this is the Age of Obama. And if that means anything, it means that the Left WILL NOT pay for ANYTHING:
http://www.breitbart.tv/violent-rioters-clash-with-police-at-uc-berkeley/
Even a tuition hike is apparently justification for liberals to take over buildings and go on sprees of violence, arson, and vandalism. But this is to be expected when liberals are confronted with the stark reality that other people’s money eventually runs out (duh). It’s very upsetting to them–they turn into braying savages and have to be taken down with tranquilizer darts. Not to worry though–all that tie-dye makes them easy-pickens.
Comment by Sean A — February 26, 2010 @ 9:21 pm - February 26, 2010
It’s like the Interstate–we all help pay for the Interstate even if not everyone uses it to the same degree. Having an Interstate highway benefits everyone. If everyone had to have health insurance, the young and healthy would be paying so that the old and fat could have lower costs. But, assuming as I do that the old and fat have things to offer society, we would all benefit.
Childless couples have a better society to live in when kids are educated, so it’s right they help pay for public schools. The young and healthy, similarly, have a better society when the old and fat have affordable health care, so it’s right that the young and healthy would have to pay for health insurance.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 26, 2010 @ 10:08 pm - February 26, 2010
Except for Tim Pawlenty that is….and maybe this is the future of conservatism
Or, more precisely, the present of liberalism — supported, endorsed, and pushed by Barack Obama and the Obama Party.
Read and weep what the Obama Party supports and endorses.
The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) today said the University of Chicago Medical Center is failing in its obligation to treat emergency patients, citing drastic reductions in inpatient beds for emergency patients and a recent news story about a 12-year-old boy attacked by a pit bull who was sent to another hospital for surgery. With hospital plans in place to reduce staffing and beds for emergency care even further, the chair of medicine and the chief of emergency medicine at the medical center have resigned.
ACEP expressed grave concerns that the University of Chicago’s policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to “patient dumping,” a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act (EMTALA), and reflected an effort to “cherry pick” wealthy patients over poor.
“The medical center is reducing emergency care access to its local community, while at the same time, opening a ‘side door’ to a ‘specialty intake area’ to provide emergency care to medical center private patients,” said
Dr. Nick Jouriles, president of ACEP. “This is a dangerous precedent that could have catastrophic effects in poor neighborhoods across the country. Congress needs to hold hearings about the problems facing emergency patients. If other community, non-profit hospitals follow this example and shift the lion’s share of resources to its high-revenue elective patients and procedures, it will leave many emergency patients virtually out in the cold. The University of Chicago Medical Center is located in a poor neighborhood whose residents have few, if any, other options for emergency care.”
And of course, Michelle Obama was paid $317k a year for part-time work to do this.
Since Tano opposes patient dumping, turning away people from emergency rooms, and six-figure salaries for health care executives, it should condemn Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, and the Obama Party that support and carry out all three.
But watch as it suddenly dodges and spins, running away, unable and unwilling to condemn the very behaviors in its Obama Party and by its Barack Obama that it condemns in others. Pure ideological bigotry and racism.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2010 @ 10:23 pm - February 26, 2010
If everyone had to have health insurance, the young and healthy would be paying so that the old and fat could have lower costs. But, assuming as I do that the old and fat have things to offer society, we would all benefit.
Ah, but you see, Ashpenaz, you don’t really believe that.
If you did, you would be paying for their health coverage yourself, rather than trying to force others to do it for you.
You are really just a moocher who’s not willing to reach into his own pocket. Instead you try to steal it from others under the guise of some pious “morality”.
Remember what Jesus said? YOU were responsible. YOU should pay. The fact that you won’t do that demonstrates that your whining is nothing more than hypocrisy, just like the Pharisees.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2010 @ 10:28 pm - February 26, 2010
Group X (insert: the old and fat, the Proletariat, the Party, the Race, the disabled, the poor, the rich, blacks, whites, straights, gays, men, women, children, what have you) are so wonderful that we should MAKE the productive people pay for them by GOVERNMENT FORCE!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2010 @ 12:17 am - February 27, 2010
(and with that made clear, all that remains is to fight each other in order to take over the government on behalf of our favored Group X)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2010 @ 12:21 am - February 27, 2010
Ash,
I see roads as listed in the enumerated powers of the constitution. I don’t see health insurance.
And before you say ‘General Welfare’ let me remind you the last defender of that clause for health care admitted he felt the government should be allowed to take all of my money to pay for his heath care.
Hey Tano, how’s that global warming working out for you?
Comment by The_Livewire — February 27, 2010 @ 12:26 am - February 27, 2010
Tano (#8) points to how he thinks the Dems are playing this game:
Tano has mouthed these words before in other threads.
So, Tano, as the bonds won’t sell and the FED is forced to “buy” them with newly printed money and the economy goes down the toilet and unemployment rises, how do the Dems plan to convince half the country that the Republicans did it to them?
Do you think this half of the country has a short memory for ginormous government indebtedness spending while keeping their hate for Bush/Cheney alive forever? Is that the Democrat game plan?
If so, explain this to me. You love polls. Can you show us polls where Obama’s disapproval rating would be vastly improved if Obamacarel were passed? Can you show us polls where Congress would return to being respected if Obamacare were passed? Can you show us polls where the Republicans would be crushed in the 2010 elections if Obamacare were enacted?
Since the Democrats have near literal control of the playing field, why doesn’t Obama do Chicago style persuasion on every Democrat that is screwing around with his Obamacare plan. Read the block quote above. They are the real problem. He could kneecap one or two for effect and send out St. Valentine’s Day massacre reminders to the rest.
It is a mighty punk Don who can not keep his own goon squad organized.
Comment by heliotrope — February 27, 2010 @ 7:56 am - February 27, 2010
Where exactly do you get “popular consensus”? You constantly rail on the “MSM” for pushing certain stories and ignoring others. Is it because the MSM has given so much time to the Tea Party movement that makes you believe it’s “popular consensus”?
I don’t think a bunch of near irrationally angry, mostly white people constitute a consensus. I think the loud cheers that erupted for that idiot Tancredo’s comment that literacy tests be brought back (which he asserts would have stopped that “socialist” from being elected) are pretty clear evidence. And, as many irrational conservatives love to do, he made sure to include the President’s middle name, just to be sure that there is something not quite American about him.
Comment by Kevin — February 28, 2010 @ 4:21 am - February 28, 2010
I think the loud cheers that erupted for that idiot Tancredo’s comment that literacy tests be brought back (which he asserts would have stopped that “socialist” from being elected) are pretty clear evidence.
Kevin, are you aware of what the requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen of this country are?
In addition to the time requirement, an applicant for U.S. citizenship must be able to speak, read, and write English, be able to sign his or her name in English, be familiar with the Constitution of the United States, and pass a test demonstrating that the applicant is familiar with important facts and principals about United States history and government.
I would have absolutely ZERO problem with imposing the same rules on those who are born here in order for them to be able to exercise voting privileges. Why do you oppose that, Kevin?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2010 @ 7:01 pm - February 28, 2010