Politico cites GOP polling firm on health care reform, omits ties to health care industry
A Politico article cited exit polling data from Republican firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, in asserting that opposition to health care reform "was the most important issue" in Republican Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts Senate election. Politico made no mention of the fact that some of Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates' clients have expressed opposition to aspects of health care reform legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Congress, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and the American Health Care Association.
In reporting firm's polling on health care reform, Politico ignored its health care industry clients
Politico: "Brown's opposition to congressional health care legislation was the most important issue," according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin. From the January 20 Politico article:
Scott Brown's opposition to congressional health care legislation was the most important issue that fueled his U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts, according to exit poll data collected following the Tuesday special election.
Fifty-two percent of Bay State voters who were surveyed as the polls closed said they opposed the federal health care reform measure and 42 percent said they cast their ballot to help stop President Obama from passing his chief domestic initiative.
"I'm not surprised it was the top issue, but I was surprised by how overwhelming an issue it was. It became a focal point for the frustration that has been brewing with voters, and it's a very personal issue that affects everyone," said Tony Fabrizio of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican firm that conducted the exit poll of 800 voters.
"A plurality of voters said their vote was to stop the president's health care plan -- more than those saying it was a vote against his policies in general," Fabrizio wrote in a memo that accompanied his exit polling.
With all the precincts counted, Brown defeated Martha Coakley Tuesday by a five point spread, 52 to 47 percent. No news organizations conducted exit polls of the race.
According to Fabrizio's findings, 48 percent of Massachusetts voters said that health care was the single issue driving their vote and 39 percent said they voted for Brown specifically because of his vocal opposition to the measure.
Politico ignored Fabrizio, McLaughlin's industry clients that have opposed aspects of health care reform. Despite quoting Tony Fabrizio of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates stating, "I'm not surprised [health care reform] was the top issue, but I was surprised by how overwhelming an issue it was," the Politico article did not mention that the firm's clients include nonprofit and corporate clients that have expressed opposition to at least some provisions in health care reform legislation that has been considered during the 111th Congress. Fabrizio, McLaughlin's list of clients includes:
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which responded to Senate passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by stating that "the bill that was passed by the Senate today is counterproductive, does little to lower the cost of health care, and it is not reform. It implements crippling new taxes, and hurts our ability to create jobs at the worst possible time for the economy."
- Blue Cross-Blue Shield, which responded to House passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act by stating that "the bill creates a new government-run plan that jeopardizes affordability and access to coverage for the 160 million people who receive their benefits through their employers today; makes health coverage much more expensive, particularly for individuals and small employers; and represents a massive federal takeover of state regulatory functions."
- The American Health Care Association, which has advocated against Medicare cuts in health care reform legislation.
















Maybe I should do a little poking around and give MMA my findings. But that would be conservative misinformation!
Avoiding specifics now I see. Very weasely.
What does pre-existing conditions have to do with any of that?
I at first thought you were trying to be weasely, now I realize it is lack of reading comprehension.
The companies are at fault for that.
Remember, government run health care is not constitutional. Just because they provide for pre-existing conditions, doesn't mean that the ends justify the means.
On one end you have greed and on the other you have loss of liberty, and we're all stuck in between.
I'm glad we can agree to disagree.
How does this have anything to do with costs?
Maybe we should open it up like credit card companies so they can all flock to the states with the least amount of regulation and can run a muck? That's worked out well for consumers right?
That's basic economics too, from the market failure section of the Year 11 IB Economics course.
A textbook is one thing. Real-world experience is another.
Besides, even as flawed as the system is now, people below a certain income level are already covered by the state for free.
unknown
Like it did in the financial sector when regulations were repealed or not enforced? That worked out well.
"I think we will in 10 years' time look back and say we should not have done this," Dorgan said back then. The video of his speech has become something of a cult favorite for wonks — ten years, a $700 billion bailout and a major financial crisis later.
Of course, Dick Armey does want to abolish Medicare- that's part of the reason he's not in office. Now if only the rest of the free market boys would speak their true mind, perhaps they could join him duping Teabaggers into donating money to undermine their own best interests- namely guaranteed health care for their golden years.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This means their right to life cannot be taken away by anyone, hence unalienable.
However if governments are fine with defying that, why should benefiting the people be stopped for the reasons that will not stop the taking of life?