Poll undermines conservative claim that Brown victory is a rejection of health care reform
Numerous conservative media figures have suggested that a victory by Republican candidate Scott Brown would indicate massive popular rejection of health care reform. In fact, election night polling by Rasmussen Reports undermines this claim, showing that a higher percentage of Martha Coakley voters than Brown voters said that health care reform was the most important issue in determining their vote.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Numerous conservatives call Brown victory a rejection of health care reform
Beck: "Health care is at stake" and Democrats could "lose Ted Kennedy's seat ... on this issue." On the January 19 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, Glenn Beck stated:
BECK: This is Ted Kennedy's seat. Health care is at stake. The progressive movement is at stake. This presidency is at stake. If they lose, this is catastrophic for them. This isn't a small, little thing.
If you lose Ted Kennedy's seat at this time in history on this issue, how are the rest of the Democrats going to fare in the rest of the country?
Rove: Democrats should "take from this" that "people have rejected their health care reform." On the January 19 broadcast of Fox News' Happening Now, Karl Rove said that Democrats should "take from" a Brown victory that "people have rejected their health care reform and step back and actually govern from the center and work with Republicans and Democrats to fashion things."
Bill Kristol: "The voters of Massachusetts are well aware that this is a national referendum on the health care bill." On the January 17 edition of Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol stated that "the voters of Massachusetts are well aware that this is a national referendum on the health care bill and on Obama's general big-government liberal program, and they don't like it. And that's Massachusetts."
Krauthammer: "[E]ssentially, it's a referendum on health care." On the January 17 edition of Fox News Sunday, columnist Charles Krauthammer said that "essentially, it's a referendum on health care. It's a referendum on the Obama agenda. And Obama's up there [campaigning for Coakley] because everything hinges on this election."
Carl Cameron: "This is a national referendum" on health care. On the January 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron called the race "a national referendum in the sense that this liberal state is having very big doubts about health care."
Steve Doocy: "[T]his looks like a huge repudiation of health care." On the January 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated: "You know, the people of Massachusetts elected Barack Obama, I think by 26, 27 points or something like that -- was the margin of victory for him, and now fast forward, here we are a little more than a year later and suddenly, this looks like a huge repudiation of, you know, health care, one vote down in Washington, one party vote down in Washington."
Nina Easton: "This is a referendum, very much on the health care plan that's moving through Congress." On the January 19 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, Fortune magazine's Nina Easton stated that part of the "big story" of the campaign was "health care. This is a referendum very much on the health care plan that's moving through Congress."
Rasmussen poll undermines conservative claims that Brown victory is a rejection of health care reform
Rasmussen election night poll shows more Coakley than Brown voters said health care reform most important factor in determining their vote. A Rasmussen Reports election night poll in Massachusetts found that 63 percent of Coakley voters said health care was the most important issue in determining their vote, while 52 percent of Brown voters said it was their top issue. As Media Matters for America has documented, Rasmussen previously reportedly worked for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign and for the Republican National Committee in 2003 and 2004.
Unlike most of America, Mass. already has universal health care
Romney advisor Kaufman on why many Mass. voters oppose health care reform: "They already paid for it." From a January 13 article at The Daily Caller:
Romney adviser Ron Kaufman, a Washington lobbyist who has been working with the Brown campaign in an unofficial advisory role, said that the people of Massachusetts are "satisfied with what they got" but that they are angry about the federal bill being debated because it would force the state to pay for something they already have: nearly universal coverage.
"They already paid for it," Kaufman said.
Brown said much the same thing during his interview on Fox.
"Why would we subsidize and why would we pay more for something we already have. It makes no sense," he said.
Hell, even the people that use to back it don't now.
Good luck trying to make this seem like anything other than it is.
:-p
Massachusetts is one state and one that has health care. Why should their vote mean anything in the borader landscape of a country that sees so many people die for lack of health care?
This vote carries no weight in the health care debate. None at all.
Please continue with your delusions now.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/29/health-reform-massachusetts-opinions-contributors-obama-insurance.html
And, genius, the compromise that was worked out last week (and that won't have a chance, now) would have extended exemptions to more than just the union members. Your boy, Brown, just all but guaranteed that the Senate package will be rubber-stamped by the House. your boy will be the reason the package wasn't improved to help the middle class. you can thank him and the party of no for that.
Please do not continue with your deleucions.
My rebuttal: NO U!
Was that supposed to be an informed rebuttal of everything I said? Keep drinking the KoolAid - who knows, maybe a higher dose will clear things up for you.
if you don't like the opinion that browns election is because of healthcare then it must be that the people of mass. want the republicans platform better than the dems.
Well the result sure's heck does...
How long do you think they will get away with that lie?
Nice try at revisionist history, though. If only there weren't so many pesky facts in the way.
Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans.
*crickets chirping*
http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/
Revisionism, not truth.
There are three groups opposed to just about anything in Washington. For health care reform, it is:
1) health care industry employees and industry lobbyists. These folks like the status quo. They have little to no incentive for change and/or are paid to work against change; therefore, they oppose it.
2) economists who really believe that health care reform will be worse for the industry than no reform at all. This is a relatively small group.
3) those who are politically opposed to President Obama and/or the Democrats. These folks get an inordinate amount of coverage on cable TV. These folks have no interest in having President Obama have any success in anything.
If we could ban any of the above from cable news and network news, we might get a very different picture and learn something.
The bills being considered may not do enough to reduce healthcare costs, but what alternative plan does? Other than a strong public option?
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/19/evidence-based-health-care-reform-lessons-from-massachusetts/
That would be stupid. We wouldn't want to look at the model and see where it is flawed and attempt to fix it. Nope. Just keep with the party line and don't try to actually solve real life problems.
if you really want to be taken seriously, you will need to start using credible sources. (And if you follow most of Breitbart's "citations" you will discover that they are rarely what he claims - but you won't do that, because he helps you to keep lying to yourself.)
Always be skeptical. That's how people make informed decisions.
I think it is extremely relevant to the discussion. Can you tell me why it wouldn't be? I would say that the voters of MA would have a working knowledge of govt. run health care and that it is a telling point in the national debate.
Unless of course off-topic means I have to agree with the posted opinion.
Hold on, let me go back and re-read the About section for this website. I thought this site was about debate and not everyone simply agreeing with the posted opinion.
"Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions."
Sort of like the Obama administration and Congress right now. That being, just listen and agree. Don't think for yourself.
I understand when I look at his sites (see I didn't say cite) that there will be a slant. Just like here.
The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
What they think of their own health care was not on the ballot at all.
(The word is "cite", by the way. I tned to pay closer attention to people who pay close enough attention to what they read to at least know how to spell a word that is central to their credibility. Once is a typo - charitably - but you have spelled it wrong more than that. You want me to believe your sources, but you can't even spell the word that refers me to them? I wouldn't nake an issue of it if you had misspelled a tougher and less-relevant word, but this one is just too telling to ignore.)
Grammar Nazi.
:-)
And his wasn't a rant, and it was coherent, and it was a post full of reasoned commentary, but other than that, you're right!
The U.S is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a universal health care system. If our system is so great, why is no other country willing to adopt it? You want to focus on one state that has a system not even close to ideal and yet you think the MA people are rejecting government health care. That's laughable. If anything, it shows just how weak our current health care bill is, and how adding a public option, extending medicare or even creating a single payer system would greatly improve our health care system just like it has in other developed worlds.
And being a superpower, you would think we would have the ability to cover the health of all our people and not let 45, 000 people die each year because the lack health care coverage.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/voting_democrat_causes_cancer.html
You call it a "crock".....okay....can you back that statement up?
Um, did you actually read the page I cited?
Read the linked page again. Slowly. Here's a hint: look for the name "Himmelstein".
Please don't feed this troll any more. The topic is not what Massachusett's healthcare is like. The topic is that there's no basis upon which any righty pundit can claim that this election is a referendum on healthcare reform.
You throw her under the bus yet???? beautiful.
Oh BTW my middle name is hmmm... as in hmmm... hmmm... hmmm... barak hussein obama.... ROFLOL
Awww - it's so cute when people feel the need to laugh at their own jokes online!!
By the Autumn of 2010 it will be apparent how many of the other politicians forcing this unpopular agenda will fare. Quite likely I am hoping, a fate similar to Coakley's. If this spectacular win can happen in the Blue State of Massachusetts, it will be a cinch in other states. Count on it.
One thing is clear, voters do not want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.
This bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, hurt Medicare, destroy jobs, and run our nation deeper into debt. It is not in the interest of our state or country - we can do better.
When in Washington, I will work in the Senate with Democrats and Republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way. No more closed-door meetings or back room deals by an out of touch party leadership. No more hiding costs, concealing taxes, collaborating with special interests, and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay.
In health care, we need to start fresh, work together, and do the job right. Once again, we can do better.
MA voters, like most across the country, were/are angry and frustrated. Brown started early and converted the frustration to his favor. Coakley did not even try.
This is not an excuse but my opinion based on first hand observations.
If I were a Republican, I would not crow too much that a Republican won. But that will not stop them anyway. Let them bask in their imagined glory.
Do you mean throwing under the bus...kind of like the way the McCain campaign came out after the election and claimed it was all Sarah's fault, telling the press that she didn't know Africa was a continent? That kind of throwing under the bus?
How quaint. mmfa uses Rasmussen polling to support their position...but only when they agree with the results. Here's what mmfa has thought about Rasmussen polling lately:
-- Another awful Rasmussen poll
January 15, 2010 8:58 am ET filed under Blog
-- Another awful Rasmussen poll
January 06, 2010 1:44 pm ET filed under Blog
-- UPDATED: Another awful Rasmussen poll
January 05, 2010 11:11 am ET filed under Blog
-- Another awful Rasmussen poll
January 03, 2010 11:07 am ET filed under Blog
-- Another awful Rasmussen poll
December 31, 2009 3:10 pm ET filed under Blog
-- Another awful Rasmussen poll, cont'd
December 04, 2009 11:08 am ET filed under Blog
Laughable but expected...mmfa will sleep with anyone if it suits their partisan agenda.
That doesn't mean that all Rasmussen polls are flawed in such a way. If you find something amiss in the specific polls that MMFA cites in this article, feel free to do so. Otherwise you're just extrapolating from the specific to the general in a failed attempt to find hypocrisy. That makes it your failing, not MMFA's.
LOL ya only the polls that disagree with your agenda are flawed the rest are ok. What a joke.
1. tort reform
2. award caps
3. remove interstate restriction on health insurance
4. get out of medicares pocket
5. stop playing stupid games a bill should be 100 pages or less
everyone wants reform, no one but an idiot wants socialized obamacare.
1. Health care
2. Banking
3. Auto industry
4. Energy through cap and tax
The KookAid tea-party goers are taking control. There will be no tolerance for corruption in the way of special deals for unions, special deals for states, strong arm twisting of businesses, usurping the Constitution, the list is endless.
What? You're going to send your SS checks back, right? And Medicare? Are you not going to use it? Do you really think that Wall Street, in view of it's recent and continuing antics shouldn't be held accountable? And you dare to mention kool-aid drinking.
Not caring about your fellow man is a nutjob trait.
Looks like the Evil Insurance companies aren’t so bad when compared to your fix all Medicare Program.
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/heal-claims-process/national-health-insurer-report-card/2008-nhirc.shtml
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/heal-claims-process/national-health-insurer-report-card.shtml
Randy
Don't pretend that your numbers are an actual reflection of anything meaningful. They clearly are not. Medicare cannot turn anyone away. Insurance companies routinely do just that. Don't be daft. Make an argument that makes sense.
Unreal. In the space of 20 words, you decry taking from Medicare, which is SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, then blast socialized medicine.
In other words, you are both FOR and AGAINST socialized medicine. To John Kerry's credit, he was merely a flip-flopper. You, pal, are certifiably insane.
Randy
Also, ScienceBuff explained it to you earlier, so I'm not sure why you're posting nonsense again. The criticisms that MMfA has against Rasmussen are very specific, and have nothing to do with the reason the poll is cited in this article. Also, you seem to make a connection between actually employees and writers for MMfA and those of us who post here. You wrote "The libs at this site discount Rasmussen as being a right wing pollster". Who cares if I write a post about Rasmussen? I'm just some anonymous poster. The people who write the content here make it very clear what their objections are. Their objections do not preclude the use of Rasmussen polls if the polls are well-worded and make sense. If you're going to post here you should at least read what MMfA writes.
Next thing you know, Glenn Beck is going to be cited on here because he says something negative about a Republican. Then the spin will be, "We weren't against what Beck says in general, just everything he ever said up to this point."
Gimme a break.
He won because of all the other issues.
The hard numbers suggest that, for those to whom it was important, more actual voters were for health care reform than against it by around 59,000.
Consequently, more actual voters seem to like the way it is shaping up.
It wasn't health care reform that put him over the top - it was a panoply of other issues.
Clearly, for those that said it was the number one issue, Coakley was the candidate of choice by nearly 60,000 votes.
Here's another one. The same Rasmussen study says that 78% of Brown voters strongly oppose the health care reform bill, while only 52% of Coakley voters strongly support the legislation (another 41% somewhat support it, but no analogous number is provided for Brown voters). So, what happens when you factor this in? If you take the 63% of Coakley voters for whom health care was their number one issue and multiply that by 52% strong favorability, you get 32.76%. On the other hand, if you take Brown's 52% for whom health care is the number one issue and multiply by the 78% strong disfavorability, you get 40.56%. Thus, I can argue that Brown voters' strong objection to health care reform outweighed Coakley voters' strong support. See? It's easy to cherry-pick stats.
I do not believe this was a referendum on health care reform. This was a bad candidate who was out of touch with those she would represent. Massachusetts would not have "paid twice" for universal health care. When a national plan had taken place, the state plan would have either been replaced (as unnecessary) or would have been covered or exempted as part of the national plan. No state representative would have allowed this so called "double payment."
Furthermore, this does not kill health care. Bush was able to pass so many crappy bills with a smaller majority and NO bipartisan support (all of a sudden Republicans think being bipartisan is really important--where were you from 2001-2007?). If the Democrats ever figure out that they are in power, they might actually do something.
And whoever thinks removing interstate restrictions on health insurance plans is going to solve anything is really misinformed. Don't you realize that the same insurance companies sell the same plans in all fifty states? How exactly will Blue Cross/Blue Shield reduce my premiums just because I can now go to the neighboring state to by the same coverage from the same companies as right here at home? There is no competition; all of these companies collude to keep rates high across the country.
They are proud of their liberal politicians in MA.
Representative James Fagan, a Massachusetts Democrat politician and defense attorney vows to torment and "rip apart" child rape victims who take the witness stand if the state legislature passed the Jessica's Law bill that applies long mandatory sentences for child sex offenders. "I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
http://www.conservapedia.com/Massachusetts_Liberal
HE WAS NOT STATING ACTIONS HE INTENDED TO TAKE. He was pointing out unintended consequences of the law that would hurt children.
Posting it the way you did is only dishonest. Not parsing. Not tinkering with the quote. It was disgustingly dishonest, completely changing the meaning of what he said.
Massachusetts is indeed special because they have a statewide law requiring everyone to get insurance. According to the news reports I have heard, people are generally satisfied with it. Maybe the plan Congress is considering is perceived as a change to the status quo.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/brown_wins_stunning_victory_in_massachusetts
"Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters in the state say health care was the most important factor in their voting decision. Brown made it clear in the closing days of the campaign that he intended to go to Washington to vote against the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.
Twenty-five percent (25%) of Massachusetts voters say the economy was most important.
Forty-seven percent (47%) favor the health care legislation before Congress while 51% oppose it. However, the intensity was clearly with those who are opposed. Just 25% of voters in Massachusetts Strongly Favor the plan while 41% Strongly Oppose it.
Fifty percent (50%) say it would be better to pass no health care legislation at all rather than passing the bill before Congress."
But that's on both sides of the issue. Some of those 56% were voting for Coakley in favor of health care. According to the data, more of Coakley's voters considered it the most important issue (63% vs 52%). As was stated before, Brown's victory would have been larger if the "health care" voters had stayed home.
Math is fun.
Considering all that Obama's administration gets out there today to say are going to continue to push for something that the citizens of this country do not want. Thanks for listening President Obama. I really appreciate it.
Here's another fun poll from Rassmussen. Monday 1/18/2010.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 38% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That matches the lowest level of support yet. Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters oppose the plan.
As has been the case throughout the debate, those who feel strongly about the issue are more likely to be opposed. Just 18% of voters Strongly Favor the plan while 44% are Strongly Opposed."
Math IS fun!
I think this correlation skewed the results and health care was actually a bigger issue than is being reported.
I'm kinda new around here. I've heard MMfA is known for having some sort of bias. Now that I've seen how bad it is I'm wondering why they bother writing at all.
It's like me writing on a blog somewhere, "Look, the Earth is flat! I put a bubble level on the ground and it reads perfectly flat! There is no curvature at all." Why would anyone bother writing such tripe?
Do you even think about challenging MMfA's claims? Do you even think about challenging a flat earther's claims or do you just read and accept?
1. Obama and team (you all) need to learn like JFK.
2. or go down the hole like carter. My bet is you (and Obama) follow carter.. hmmmm.....
Connecticut is the Mecca for insurance companies. If you have life insurance, it is likely from a company located in Connecticut.
Buying health insurance accross state lines would likely cause premiums to go up for most Americans.