Despite polling, Andrea Mitchell saw "general election" problem for Clinton on health care
While reporting on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) recently unveiled universal health-care proposal during the September 18 edition of NBC's Today, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said that "the real problem for Clinton" may be "selling the plan in the general election campaign." As evidence, Mitchell pointed to attacks on Clinton by Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney over her health-care proposal. But, Mitchell did not note that, in fact, public opinion polling shows that the majority of Americans support a national health insurance program.
A September 14-16 CBS News poll found that 55 percent of respondents favored "having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers." Specifically, 67 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of Independents, and 43 percent of Republicans favored this. Twenty-nine percent indicated a preference for the "current system" (including 47 percent of Republicans, 17 percent of Democrats, and 28 percent of Independents). The poll analysis also stated, "In addition, 76% think the fact that many Americans do not have health insurance is a very serious problem for the U.S."
Additionally, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, several polls taken in May and June also found that a majority of respondents favored a government program to provide health insurance to all Americans:
- In a May 4-6 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 64 percent of respondents said they "think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes."
- In a May 31-June 5 poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International for the Kaiser Family Foundation, 53 percent of respondents -- specifically, 72 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and 36 percent of Republicans -- said they wanted a presidential candidate to propose "a new health plan that would make a major effort to provide health insurance for all or nearly all of the uninsured," even if it "would involve a substantial increase in spending," in contrast with 21 percent in favor of a "new health plan that is more limited and would cover only some groups of the uninsured BUT would involve less new spending" and 17 percent in favor of "[k]eeping things basically as they are." Fourteen percent of Democrats, 23 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans favored a candidate who supported a "more limited" option that "involve[d] less new spending"; while 26 percent of Republicans, 8 percent of Democrats, and 19 percent of Independents favored "[k]eeping things basically as they are."
- A May 29-31 poll conducted by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that:
- Fifty-four percent of respondents favored a "proposal that provided every American with health insurance, even if it meant your taxes or health care premiums would increase as a result."
- Fifty-five percent favored a "single-payer health care plan."
- Sixty-eight percent favored a plan that -- similar to Clinton's proposal -- would "require businesses to either cover their employees or make a contribution to a pool that help fund health care coverage for the uninsured. It would require all Americans to get health insurance and provide subsidies for Americans who could not afford it. It would also make insurance more affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and taking steps to contain health care costs."
From the September 18 edition of NBC's Today:
MITCHELL: While polls show health care is a priority for Democratic voters, the issue is a complicated one for the Clinton campaign.
CHUCK TODD (NBC News political director): It is a double-edged sword for Clinton because on one hand it brings up a political defeat, something that isn't one of her proudest moments. On the other hand, it underscores this idea that she has experience.
[...]
MITCHELL: Other opponents were quick to criticize Clinton's failures of the past.
JOHN EDWARDS (Democratic presidential candidate) [video clip]: Senator Clinton believes that you need to give drug companies, insurance companies, and their lobbyists a seat at the table. I believe if you give them a seat at the table, they'll eat all the food.
MITCHELL: But the real problem for Clinton may not be in the Democratic primary. Instead, if she wins the nomination, it will be selling the plan in a general election campaign.
GIULIANI [video clip]: This is essentially the Michael Moore-Hillary Clinton approach.
ROMNEY [video clip]: Version 2.0 is not likely to have any more success than 1.0. HillaryCare continues to be bad medicine.
MITCHELL: Now, Clinton would partly pay for the plan by rolling back much of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but there will still be critics on both sides saying it does either too much or too little.
the Republican candidates still have their head in the sand about the crying need for universal health care.
Clinton has a detailed plan and in its favor has more of a chance than most of the other plans to cover everyone. However, I like Edwards' approach better.
Andrea Mitchell (wife of Alan Greenspan) is simply spouting "conventional beltway wisdom" (wisdom used here being an irony)
I meant that Hillary's plan has a better chance to pass Congress than the other plans because of the lobbyists. But I like Edwards' plan better.
The fact that the media is willing to go against vox populi regarding universal health care shows how pervasive the moneychangers grip is. Its shameful for a responsible media to criticize without healthy debate (pun intended).
People will surely favor the Republican candidates' health care proposals more, which are... uh... "not socialized medicine! BOOOO!"
Exactly. What kind of priorities are these?
There are 47 million uninsured in this country, almost one out of six people. I personally know two people who were good workers and fired because their health costs were too high for the company. I'm sure almost everyone knows someone like that or has at least heard stories about the problems with our current system.
The problem is there is an inherent conflict of interest here. Are we concerned with people's health...or are we concerned with profits? These are mutually exclusive goals. If you want to expand your coverage of people's health, that costs you more money. There's no way around that.
My favorite personal example was when a moron ran a 1200-pound (at least) cart into my foot. I had to go to the hospital, even though I was sure nothing was broken, because at the very least I had to have a drug test. I was taken to have X-rays, without them asking me if I wanted them. Now, after having a work-related injury and being forced to go to the hospital and having a service performed that I wasn't asked if I wanted, I received a bill for over $600 (and this was NOT a high-paying job). After complaining to human resources over the phone, and receiving assurances they would take care of it, I continued to receive bills. I had to physically go into their office and threaten legal action to their faces to get them to pay what they obviously knew they were responsible for. Were they really that disorganized that they couldn't handle it over the course of several months, or did they just hope that I would pay the bill?
Whether that's the norm or not, or the examples of the two people I know who were fired for their health is typical, it's obvious that the love of money skews the priorities of companies. I don't give a damn if it's socialized or not, just fix the system so companies aren't trying to screw over good employees over their health. Fix it so that we don't have so many people uninsured and underinsured.
That can't possibly be a tough sell for the American people.
Only someone with plenty of money, a job that pays for insurance, or the spouse of someone very wealthy would make such a statement. Common folks who cannot get their kids health care without a 4 to 10 hour wait in some emergency room will heartily approve her plan. I have rheumatic heart disease that has required 3 heart valve repairs and finally surgery to replace two valves with mechanical valves. I am a nurse and always chose to work for a hospital where I got medical insurance - even though wages there might be lower. All that expense for my insurance and thousands of dollars for my copays, nearly a million dollars for want of $2.00 worth of sulfa drug when I had rheumatic fever. Believe it or not, my mom had to choose a doctor's visit and medicine or feed me and the rest of my siblings. Now, this problem is taken care of with visits to Emergency Rooms by the uninsured - the most expensive medical care in the entire medical system. And many cannot even get seen in an Emergency Room. I can tell you the people who will love her proposal will be people who want health care for every person in our country. That would include the poor, Christians who were admonished by our Lord to take care of the poor and the many other's just for the reason that they believe in fairness, bless them.
Mitchell, in "informing" the public, should consider that the vast weight of "general election problems" are not illustrated by Rudy and Romney, they are EXPERIENCED by those guys. GOPers across the board face the "general election problems" of having their every policy and position being not only FAILURES, but an utter betrayal of the American People as well as needlessly bloody and futile.
From the Iraq war to Health Care, the Rightwing GOPers while COMPLETELY IN CHARGE of government ... Congressional majorities as well as the White House ... has made every aspect of the lives of Americans MUCH WORSE. Their "ideas" don't work, their programs benefit only the very rich while all others suffer, and their "leadership" proves reliably incompetent. They are corrupt, they are morally unfit, and they cannot govern a nation.
To be fair, the GOP HAS been successful at what seems to be their only goal: Heaping windfall billions on their friends, directly through tax dollars or indirectly through favorable legislation or even more indirectly through the NON ENFORCEMENT of rules and regulations. The rich make out like bandits under GOP rule, give the devil his due.
But, the American People, by all polling indication, have wised up to the GOP farce. Rightwingers are PARIAHS today, and all they can do is keep trying their "politics of personal destruction" through lies to try to make themselves look better and perhaps be viable for election. It's not working, smearmongers of the Right. The people know your game, and REJECT it.