Ignoring polling, Wash. Post redefines "center" as excluding public plan
The Washington Post described an "emerging" bipartisan health care reform bill that would "abandon the government insurance option that President Obama is seeking" as a "move toward" the "center," but in fact, several recent polls show that a majority of Americans support a public plan option. The media have repeatedly cast the public plan option as a far-left proposal, skewing the health care debate.
From the August 6 article, "Senators Closer To Health Package," bearing the subhead "Bipartisan Talks On Reform Move Toward Center":
Senate negotiators are inching toward bipartisan agreement on a health-care plan that seeks middle ground on some of the thorniest issues facing Congress, offering the fragile outlines of a legislative consensus even as the political battle over reform intensifies outside Washington.
The emerging Finance Committee bill would shave about $100 billion off the projected trillion-dollar cost of the legislation over the next decade and eventually provide coverage to 94 percent of Americans, according to participants in the talks. It would expand Medicaid, crack down on insurers, abandon the government insurance option that President Obama is seeking and, for the first time, tax health-care benefits under the most generous plans. Backers say the bill would also offer the only concrete plan before Congress for reining in the skyrocketing cost of federal health programs over the long term.
Polling shows majority of Americans support public option
Most recent polls show that the majority of Americans support a public option. Recent polling from Washington Post/ABC News, Time, and McClatchy all show more than 50 percent support for a public option; two Quinnipiac polls and a New York Times/CBS News poll show more than 60 percent support; and an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows 46 percent support for a public option:
Quinnipiac: 62 percent support "public option." When asked whether they "support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans," 62 percent of respondents in a July 27-August 3 Quinnipiac poll said they support giving people a public option. In a July poll asking the same question, 69 percent said they support a public option.
Washington Post/ABC News: 54 percent support a "government-run plan." A July 15-18 Washington Post/ABC News poll asked: "Thinking about health care, one proposal to insure nearly everyone would require all Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty on their income tax, excluding those with lower incomes. It would require most employers to offer health coverage or pay a fee. There would be a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. And income taxes on people earning more than 280-thousand dollars a year would be raised to help fund the program. Taken together, would you support or oppose this plan? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?" Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would support the plan.
Time: 56 percent favor a "government-sponsored" option. In a July 27-28 Time poll, 56 percent of respondents said they would favor a health care bill that "creates a government-sponsored public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans."
NY Times/CBS News: 66 percent favor a "government administered" plan. When respondents were asked in a July 24-28 New York Times/CBS News poll whether they would "favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan - something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans," 66 percent said they would support the plan.
McClatchy: 52 percent say "it is necessary to create a public health insurance plan." In a July 9-13 Ipsos/McClatchy poll, 52 percent of respondents said that the statement -- "It is necessary to create a public health insurance plan to make sure that all Americans have access to quality health care" -- came "closest to [their] opinion" of "whether or not the government should create a public health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance."
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: 46 percent favor a plan "administered by the federal government." However, at least one poll, conducted July 24-27 by NBC News/Wall Street Journal, shows a split opinion on the public option. When respondents were asked whether they would "favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies," 46 percent said they would favor such a plan, while 44 percent said they would oppose it; 10 percent of respondents were not sure.
Post continues media pattern of portraying public option as left-most proposal
From the article:
Still, as the six senators continue their talks, the political debate over health-care reform has become increasingly polarized. Liberal Democrats are incensed that the Finance Committee has rejected a government-run health insurance plan in favor of a network of member-owned cooperatives -- a needless concession, they believe, given the Democrats' 60-vote majority in the Senate. Meanwhile, many Republicans view blocking health-care reform as a smart political strategy that will help their party draw a sharp line with congressional Democrats in the 2010 elections.
Media skew health care debate by casting public plan option as left-most proposal. As Media Matters for America has noted, the media are once again ignoring a position embraced by many progressives, this time on health care -- helping to skew the debate and potentially ensure that the legislation that Congress and the Obama administration work out will fall short of what the administration and the public are advocating, which itself is less than many progressives say is necessary. In their coverage of a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) for a system of health coverage "cooperatives" as an alternative to the inclusion of a public plan option, the media have often portrayed the co-op system proposal as a compromise between the public plan option, which Obama is advocating, and a plan free of any government involvement, which many congressional Republicans are advocating, without noting that the public plan option is itself a compromise for many progressives, who advocate a single-payer system. Indeed, in the view of many progressives, the public plan option is the least that must be included for health care reform to be successful.
The Republicans have no brains, and the Democrats have no balls.
May they all rot in Hell.
Like Bill Maher said, "some things shouldn't be for profit".
In my opinion, Sweden's got it right (except for the changes recently from the Right that privatized some things). An example is Swedens monopoly on alcohol retail. The price is the same everywhere, they check your ID really good, etc. There's no motivation to sell a bottle of vodka to a 16-year old.
You don't care if somebody loses their health care when they lose their job.
You don't care when somebody is denied the coverage they paid for at the moment they need it the most.
You don't care that people go bankrupt paying staggering medical bills.
You don't care that people (men, women, children--some of them your neighbors) are refused coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.
You sneer at anyone who does care, at anyone who wants to make this country better. And why is that? Because you've got yours and the rest of us can go to hell? Or maybe you're older and on Medicare--complaining loudly while demanding more.
You're not really an American, are you, Right On? You couldn't care less about the country you live in just as long as the people you don't care about elect a government that reflects your me first mindset.
Holy crap, how old are you?
I know you.
You're the guy yelling at the kids to get off his lawn.
You're the guy who talks about other races as "those people" and changes lines if the clerk isn't the right color.
You're the guy that sat smugly on your butt (duff) and thought the world would never change.
Spare me your hatred and bitterness just because you got left behind.
Socialist taking over America?
Capatilism not given a free enough reign?
Is it (gasp) the Iluminati?
I like to think that I actully listen to both sides of a debate.
I like capatilism, I like free speech, you know, all those American things. Tell us what we are missing.
The public debate. From the article above:
What part of that is unclear to you?
Liberals, they love to whine and blame everyone but themselves, and now it's within their own party and they still point fingers elsewhere. When they learn to take responsibility for their own inaction, they may grow up.
You got what you wanted, unfettered, total 100% control of every branch of government. You've had the mainstream media forever, and you still are stuck on some health care reform. If that isn't ineptness at work, I can't think of a better example.
What MMFA is saying is that despite the polls being in a certain direction, the media is ignoring them and running with their own version of things.
Which should not be a surprise, since a huge percentage of their ads come from health care companies.
It's everywhere, too. Just last week, the L.A. Times ran a two-page story on the House debate and referred to the Blue Dogs as "moderates" and the "liberals and progressives" as some marginalized group of troublemakers.
As usual.
"Public debate always has the power to influence the policy makers" - by you.
Huh?
Once again, you make a claim that makes no sense whatsoever.
It's because your clarity of thought always gets tripped up by your rhetoric. That is why I say stick to topics on race, where you have but one note in your playbook and you won't have this problem.
And to stay on topic, what I said above was that public debate has the power to influence policy makers. That's a truism that doesn't contradict anything else that's been written here by myself or MMFA. In fact, it's the very reason that articles like this are necessary and worthwhile. If you can't wrap your mind around that, then there's nothing else that anyone can say to make it any clearer for you.
yes, because the Dems are MORE influenced and frightened by the media-induced mobs, who are swayed by media propaganda, which makes it look like 'up' is indeed down.
Personally, I want intelligent debate that is driven by facts, not corporate or partisan interest groups. That is what we supposedly rely on our news organizations for. Seems to me that they have forgotten this and are not doing the best job they could. Maybe, if it is pointed out enough, someone will get an idea.
The end.
Let's see, ignoring polls that show a majority of americans support a public option, advertising people who disrupt Town Hall meetings as being "Real Americans", which implies that everyone else is not a "Real American". Etc, etc.
Journalist, news networks, etc should be reporting the news, nothing more. When the journalists own opinions skew (there is that word again) the way the report events, then they are not reporting anymore, they are disimating propaganda.
But you're right: they should just go single payer. Period. To hell with the conservatives, to hell with the insurance companies. Get the system up and running, make it work, and then turn around and say "I told you so." (And say, "Hello" to a permanent liberal majority.)
But it's like I said: The Republicans have no brains, and the Democrats have no balls.
But the media is STILL distorting the issue in numberous ways, and most of the public opposition is hilariously misinformed. (Keep yer gov't paws off my medicare!) The media should still be called out for their RW propaganda peddling. If you don't get that, why do you even come here?
Ahhhhh...The REAL reason progressives want this thing to pass.
Right, like trying to provide health care is some sort of nefarious plot. Look - we've seen what a "permanent conservative majority" will bring you, based on the behavior of Bush, Cheney and Rove over the past 8 years. Name one thing they did that COULDNT be described as such!
Shame on me for thinking that the 'permanent majority' should actually serve the PEOPLE instead of Religious Whacko's and Huge Corporations. So you're right, I want this to pass, becuase I want to expose what greedy bastards the copnservatoive noise machine are and how stupid and ignorant the sheep are that listen to them. I want to permanently kill the current republican party and the current conservtaive mindset becasue I actually believe in what America was founded on, and believe in defendeing ratehr than destroying that which makes us great.
Did you miss the part about "I told you so."
My response above is waaay more that you deserve.
The REAL reason progressives want this thing to pass.
This might possibly be the single most stupid thing I have ever read. You're a moron. I can't even begin to unravel the absudity of this statement. The stupidity inherent in your reasoning is palatable enoug to possibly be contagious.
As tough as I've been on you an your posts recently, I still thought better of you. Seeing this I realize that I've been giving you way too much credit. That post doesn't pass a dime-store comedy.
Well, yeah... you COULD have said this... but that still only makes the conservatives the bad guys. (See my point (3) below.)
1) In all seriousness, NO, I think it's absurd to say that ANY one bill will bring about a permanent anything. I don't even think this will bring about permanent health care reform.
2) You are correct - speaking generally and in princle: a permanent majority of ANY KIND is bad. This was not however an END that I was parsonally rooting for, but rather a 'brass ring' that I thought might motivate the Democrat's to grow a set and get something done, conservtaive opposition (in this case) be damned.
3) It you DO believe that this bill can in fact bring a permanent liberal majority, then you must concede that it'd hafta be a real humdinger - a fantastic idea that, once impliemnted, everyone will love, and the inherent goodness of which will be self evident. This is, after all, the only REAL WAY one bill can get you a "permanent majority. And if that's the case, opposing such a GOOD BILL just becuase you fear that the party behind might be rewarded for their good efforts and strong wisdom with a permanent majority...? Well, that's just STUPID.
It is my opinion that a politicians job is to get re-elected. Period. Keeping their job is the way they are told they that are doing it right. And there are two ways to do this:
1) Impliment "good" policies [those that benefit everyone] and hope the public recognizes this and is not swayed by method (2).
2) Impliemnt "bad" policies [those that benefit only the privelged few] and then use their money to buy up media time that you can spend tryign to convince the public that your lousy idea was better that candidate #1's good idea.
Now... good idea's vs. bad ideas we can, of course, debate until the cows come home. But in terms of their respective behiaviors and srtategies, there is no doubt in my mind that candidate #1 is a democrat and #2 a republican. Or, as I also like to say:
Democrats always do a lousy job of implimenting good ideas. Republicans always do a fantastic job implention bad ones.
The REAL reason is that single payer will get our health care up to the same level as the rest of the world.
You're right. And I think that's what the ealier poster was commenting on. I also think that's what these "encouraged" protests at townhall meetings are designed for - to convince the moderate Democrats not to vote for healthcare reform. To scare them into thinking that they will be voted out next time.
I also think Obama is wasting his time trying to get the Republicans to even really come to the table in any meaningful act of bipartisanship. He think he knows what is best - he should push his party to make it happen. Make them fear him and his bully pulpit more than they fear the crazies on the right who have no real power.
He won the election and I am inclined to let him show us what he was elected to do - change the things that aren't working. I think a majority of Americans who voted for him are as well. If things aren't changed for the better in 4 years then it will be someone else's turn. Of course, I thought he should have been stronger and meaner during the primary and general elections as well, and he proved me incorrect by winning both of them.
Unknown what the artist's thought was.
Depending on that, either really bad implementation, or just wrong.
(And BTW... we don't 'worship' our elected officials. That idiotic phenomenon is pretty much limited to you flag-waving 'morans'.)
Government sponsored health insurance would alleviate the need of all businesses to waste time, money, manpower, and other resources on healthcare.
I.e., it would be good for small businesses all the way up to mega corporations. This would allow them to go back to using the profit motive to invent ways of making our lives better which, as we know, is the sole purpose of business.