About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Politico cites GOP polling firm on health care reform, omits ties to health care industry

January 20, 2010 2:15 pm ET — 41 Comments

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.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (January 20, 2010 2:29 pm ET)
      2 6
      Politico identified them as a Republican firm, and was their poll slanted as well? MMfA doesn't take issue with that, so it must be accurate.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 2:48 pm ET)
        4 2
        "and was their poll slanted as well? MMfA doesn't take issue with that"
        Wow, figured that out all by yourself, did ya? Meanwhile, MMFA takes issue with the lack of disclosure, something that apparently doesn't matter to you, but does matter to anyone thinks such disclosure is useful in determining how much trust to place in such a poll.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 20, 2010 3:01 pm ET)
          2 5
          Isn't saying it's a Republican firm disclosure enough for you? It is for most people that don't require spoon feeding.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 3:51 pm ET)
            1 2
            Simply saying it's a Republican firm may be enough for people who make up their minds on as little information as possible, but not for people who view business ties to be just as important, if not more so, than political ones.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by sepirothpk (January 21, 2010 6:17 pm ET)
               
            I thought you didn't view things as black and white. I'm sure not 100% of republicans take opposition to the reform.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by vhw28672478 (January 20, 2010 3:43 pm ET)
      3 2
      The Gop is a joke
      Report Abuse
    • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 4:22 pm ET)
      1 2
      Government run health care is unconstitutional. I wonder what special interest groups are so desperately wanting to get this passed and crying foul about Scott Brown?

      Maybe I should do a little poking around and give MMA my findings. But that would be conservative misinformation!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 4:42 pm ET)
        2 1
        "Government run health care is unconstitutional."
        In other words...shut down the VA. Shut down Bethesda National Naval. Do not relocate Walter Reed after its slated closure. Let our maimed soldiers and veterans fend for themselves on the open market with what little money they have.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 5:04 pm ET)
          1 3
          Soldiers are part of the millitary. Try again, please.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
            1 1
            But those are examples of government run health care. They're unconstitutional.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 5:11 pm ET)
            2 1
            Veterans are typically former members of the military.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 6:03 pm ET)
              1 1
              My argument was that health care is unconstitutional. Avoiding the argument again I see.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 7:01 pm ET)
                1 1
                No, you said government run health care is unconstitutional. I gave you examples of unconstitutional health care.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by my4cents (January 20, 2010 10:34 pm ET)
            1  
            Shutdown Medicare.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 5:06 pm ET)
          1 3
          What 'open market'? The Dems have so much regulation on health insurance as it is, is it any wonder the rates are so high? Lets see some competition for lower rates. Let the free-market work like it's supposed to.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 5:17 pm ET)
              1
            Which of the "Democratic" regulations are keeping people with preexisting conditions from being able to get health care insurance?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 5:58 pm ET)
              1 3
              Changing subjects now I see. Very weasely.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 6:02 pm ET)
                1 1
                No, I'm not changing subjects. You cited regulation from the Dems as the problem with health care costs. I requested specifics.

                Avoiding specifics now I see. Very weasely.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 6:06 pm ET)
                  1 2
                  No, I never said anything about preexisting conditions. I was citing government regulations preventing competition across state lines, giving health care companies a monopoly, thereby raising rates.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 6:52 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    So who is to blame for coverage being unavailable if you have a preexisting condition?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 6:59 pm ET)
                      1 3
                      Ok I'll go off topic with you.

                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 7:09 pm ET)
                        2 1
                        So the Dems aren't responsible for every single thing that's wrong with health care today. That's refreshing.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by null1fy (January 21, 2010 11:35 am ET)
                             
                          There are a lot of things wrong with the system. I agree with you that the Dems aren't fully responsible.

                          On one end you have greed and on the other you have loss of liberty, and we're all stuck in between.
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by pete592 (January 20, 2010 7:20 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    "What does pre-existing conditions have to do with any of that?"
                    A preexisting condition is one of the most notorious ways people get priced out of the market. When the uninsured cannot get insurance, they wind up in emergency rooms when something goes wrong. This results in uncompensated care, the cost of which gets passed on in the form of higher medical care costs for everyone, which leads to higher insurance costs for everyone. Breaking down state line barriers will not alleviate this problem, IMO.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by null1fy (January 21, 2010 11:36 am ET)
                         
                      IMO, breaking down state lines will be a good start to alleviating the problem.

                      I'm glad we can agree to disagree.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (January 21, 2010 4:42 pm ET)
                     
                  Which of the "Democratic" regulations are keeping people with preexisting conditions from being able to get health care insurance?


                  How does this have anything to do with costs?
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by Aurien (January 20, 2010 5:22 pm ET)
              1
            What new legislation regulating health insurance companies got passed in the last couple of years by democrats that's negatively effecting health insurance companies?

            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?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by uhh...right (January 20, 2010 5:57 pm ET)
            3 1
            Are you actually saying that the rates are high because of regulation? And a lack of regulation- a true free market with an eye only on bottom line profit- would cause rates to decrease? Well, following this train-wreck of logic, how do the profits increase when the rates decrease??? Please don't tell me competition- we were sold that bill of goods in the similarly limited player arena of cable TV and I'm still waiting for competition to stem the tide of rising costs.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 5:59 pm ET)
              1 3
              Yes that's what I'm saying.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 6:35 pm ET)
                 
              Profits increase as rates decrease because of volume. It's simple economics.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by sepirothpk (January 21, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
                   
                It depends at what one point the highest returns are. In a free market not everyone would be supplied with health care due to the cost been too high. This is due to equilibrium pricing being where the firms would supply at the same point the households can or want to demand. So people below a certain income would have no chance on their own of obtaining health care, therefore an allocative efficiency but a socially inefficient solution.
                That's basic economics too, from the market failure section of the Year 11 IB Economics course.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by null1fy (January 22, 2010 10:42 am ET)
                     
                  That is an interesting theory, however, I'm in the auto parts business and we make our money from volume, not gross profit percentage. If we were to raise our prices too much on our wholesale accounts, nobody would buy anything. If we didn't do the volume we do, we would be in the red & unable to sell at the low prices we do.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 20, 2010 6:41 pm ET)
            1 1
            Let the free-market work like it's supposed to.

            unknown


            Like it did in the financial sector when regulations were repealed or not enforced? That worked out well.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 6:37 pm ET)
             
          The ends don't justify the means.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Aurien (January 20, 2010 5:19 pm ET)
          1
        And what exact part of the constitution says that federal government can't pay for health care for citizens of the United States? Oh that right, the Republican PR machine said so, so that makes it true.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by uhh...right (January 20, 2010 6:10 pm ET)
        1  
        Absolutely! The GOP platform going forward should state loudly and clearly: MEDICARE is TYRANNY! Let the free market decide what our retirees will pay from their life savings (sorry about the recent free market collateral damage on that one) for health care. After all, America is built on rugged individualism- if you can't pay for it, do it yourself.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rajihammr (January 20, 2010 7:35 pm ET)
             
          America was built by corporations who used individuals. (can you spout your tripe without that tired "rugged individualism" cliché?) Free market? What free market dude? Ask the insurance industry if they want to insure the people in the Medicare demographic. Go ahead try it. Rates would be unbelievable. It would probably be the quickest route to single payer like Canada and I would love it. Oh, by the way dude, you would still be able to purchase private insurance so knock yourself out! You no doubt have a freaking load of money cause you work so hard and you're such a "rugged individualist".
          Report Abuse
      • Author by sepirothpk (January 21, 2010 6:21 pm ET)
           
        So's the death penalty if you read one of the most important statements in the constitution:
        "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?
        Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.