Contrary to polls, Luntz claimed IN, NE, AR voters "do not want" heath care reform
On ABC's This Week, Republican pollster Frank Luntz claimed that voters in Indiana, Nebraska, and Arkansas "do not want" health care reform because of "the cost to the deficit." In fact, recent polling indicates that voters in all three states support or are split on creating the public option -- a key element in health care reform -- and the recently passed House health care reform bill is projected to reduce, not add to, the deficit.
Luntz: Voters in IN, NE, AR, "do not want this legislation" because of the "the cost to the deficit"
From the November 8 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
LUNTZ: I feel sorry for Evan Bayh and for Blanche Lincoln -- senators from Indiana, Arkansas. I know Nebraska, Ben Nelson --
COKIE ROBERTS: Mary Landrieu.
LUNTZ: -- Mary Landrieu of Louisiana -- these states do not want this legislation. And they don't want it because of the personal costs and the cost to the deficit. They're conservative states economically and a lot of senators are going to have to cast some very difficult votes.
Voters in IN, NE, AR support public option in health care reform
In Arkansas, 56 percent support public option: According to a Research 2000 poll conducted for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America (DFA), 56 percent of Arkansas residents support a public option. The poll, conducted October 27-28, asked Arkansas residents if they favored or opposed "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."
In Indiana, 52 percent support public option: Similarly, an October 24-25 Research 2000 poll conducted for PCCC and DFA found that 52 percent of Indiana residents support "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."
In Nebraska, within the margin of error: An October 29-30 Research 2000 poll conducted for PCCC and DFA found that Nebraskans are split on the public option. When asked if they favored or opposed "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," 46 percent favored such a plan, while 44 percent opposed it.
House, Senate Finance bills will reduce deficit
CBO estimated federal budget deficit reductions of $109 billion during first decade. Contrary to Luntz's claim that health care reform will increase the deficit, the Congressional Budget Office found that the House health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) "would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period."
CBO also found the Senate Finance Bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years. The October 7 CBO analysis of the Senate Finance Committee bill found:
According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting the Chairman's mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1). The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period.1 In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty. [emphasis added]
Luntz is, quite simply, a LIAR and so are the rest of his crazy wing-nut friends.
That's one of the major ways that you can differentiate them from Newsbusters or the Media Research Center, for example. Those groups ascribe intent by alleging that they've found examples of bias or slant. MMFA doesn't allege bias, although any individual reader can come to the conclusion that a journalist whose work-product is exposed here repeatedly is biased.
You can call it a lie if you want. I call things seen here lies all the time.
But the thing I was discussing was how MMFA doesn't use the word "lie". If you want to complain to MMFA that they should use the word "lie" more often, feel free, but it's not my standard - it's theirs. Not sure why my explanation of their standard made you irate with me.
There was nothing "irate" about my response and I apologize if you took it that way. Perhaps I am suggesting MMfA ought to be more direct in calling a club a club. But, my point certainly, is that reasonable people can look at the behavior of many in the media and call them out for being liars.
I said that MMFA won't say that it's a lie because they don't try to divine intent!!!
I am NOT hiding behind anything. I was explaining to YOU why MMFA doesn't use the word "lie".
I wasn't saying whether or not it was a lie. I suspect it was a lie. But what I think doesn't matter when it comes to MMFA using the word lie, which is what the original poster was wishing for!
eek, he suddenly would change?
After all these years, have you not detected the typical republican tactics?
Tell an outrageous lie and hope that it goes unchallenged.
If challenged, change the subject.
If the challenge continues, increase the volume and/or challenge the knowledge or credentials of the challenger.
Ease out of the conversation having planted an impression, false that it might be.
So, review the history of Luntz and his cohorts and then think about this debate.
It's MMFA that refuses to call these things a lie. I was explaining why they won't call these things lies.
What part of that did you miss in your kneejerk reactions?
It's not an effort at politeness that stops MMFA from calling them lies. It's that calling these things a lie requires MMFA to know the motive of another person, and despite our belief that we know the motives of these people, MMFA can't/won't assume they know the motives of the speaker/writer in their research pieces.
Louisiana receives $1.78 for every dollar paid.
Arkansas receives $1.41 for every dollar paid.
Indiana receives $1.05 for every dollar paid.
I think it's only fair that these states who are so concerned should try to get by with what New Jersey receives which is $0.61 for every dollar they pay.
But only until the deficit is under control.
Now how many people in those states who rail against "big gv-ment" know that???
Nebraskans could subsidize universal healthcare in their state by designating that a couple of bucks extra for their U. of Nebraska football season tickets go to Medicare for all....
Same for Arkansas, Alamama, Florida.......
In fact, all the big bucks sporting events could have a slight surcharge for universal health care, how about?
I'd gladly pay a surcharge for my opera and symphony tickets, on my entire bill at Whole Foods, my arugula and the waxing of my body and my limo.
How about a creative tax, which places a surcharge on overused phrases? "Comfort food", umami flavor, "thinking out of the box", for example.
With all due respect, at the end of the day, I'd have to concur.
Think of the children, and step off, Luntz!
"The truth will make you fret, um, Fred?, no, free lunch, yah that's the ticket!"
Earlier.
"I am LaBrea Man. Wife and I live in pits. I discover pain and boredom, and how to use hands in selfdefence."
"We are his many cousins."
"I smelt the rock."
"I bronzed the shoe."
"I lay the asphalt."
"Together we made enough noise to keep the wolves awake."
Nebraska on the other hand, may not benefit as much.
The house bill passed is even worse than HR3200 upon which it was based. Most people in American want improved health care, and most don't want Pelosi's bill.
What happens when the congress changes hands and conservatives refuse to fund it? What happens when conservatives gain control of both houses and simply repeal it. Where are we then?
Since Obama and Pelosi invented politicizing health care by passing a strictly partisan bill, that is what most people expect to happen after 2010 and 2012.
What I don't understand is why we don't yank the fools who are in congress playing these games and vote people in who can actually solve problems.
Proof?
The largest and most powerful doctors group, the American Medical Association, endorsed the House bill, but I should believe your dribble about a doctors drain?
The CBO did a preliminary estimate of the Republican amendment to the House health-care bill.
Coverage:
Democrats - 36 million more covered by 2019, 96% of U.S. covered
Republicans - 3 million more covered by 2019, 83% of U.S. covered.
Cost:
Democrats - $104 billion in deficit reduction by 2019.
Republicans - $68 billion in deficit reduction by 2019. And in the large-group market, where 80% of American get their private insurance, there would be a 0-3% reduction in the cost of their premiums.
CBO report to John A. Boehner-substitute for H.R. 3962...
Before you run out and buy "Republicans are in control" stickers for 2010, you might want to come up something better than this crap! And don't forget, America looks very different than your tea-bagging parties.
And don't forget, when Republicans boot out moderates, and replace them with candidates like 'lipstick on a pig' Palin, you end up with NY23.
Personally, I have no problem with Republicans repeating NY23, but FYI, it'll only get you control of the loony asylum, not Congress.
We did!
Bush and Republicans had complete control of the government for 6 years, so we held elections in 2006 and 2008, yanked out the "I love tax breaks for the wealthiest 1%" Republicans and now we have health-care reform!
Your first three paragraphs are filled with wingnut certainty but you start the last sentence with the only thing that is certain. You don't understand.
That's a lie. Doctors will conceivably have 47 million MORE patients. And with results-based pay, they will be able to do more and better work instead of seeing patients for 5 minutes and then ordering a slew of expensive, unnecessary tests.
Doctors are for this bill, in case you missed it.
mmfa headline: Luntz Claimed IN, NE, AR voters "do not want" health care reform
Luntz's actual quote: "these states do not want this legislation".
You can argue the validity of Luntz's statement all you want but the mmfa headline misrepresented his quote...ala Drudge.
There is a tiny faction of people who "don't want health care reform"...while the overwhelming majority support it...and there is a large segment that supports health care reform but simply do not like this legislation...as Luntz opined.
Not cool when a media watchdog acts like its prey.