CBS Poll: “Most Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill”
[Guest post by DRJ]
A CBS News poll indicates 62% of Americans want Republicans to challenge ObamaCare:
The poll shows 42% of Americans approve and 46% disapprove of ObamaCare, although 52% see it as a major accomplishment for President Obama. In addition, before the vote, 35% of respondents said ObamaCare would have No Effect on them personally, 38% thought it would Hurt, and 20% thought it would Help. After the vote, the same respondents answered:
HOW WILL REFORMS AFFECT YOU PERSONALLY?
Help ———- 16%
Hurt ———- 35%
No Effect — 43%
It would be interesting to know if the respondents’ answers covered only the impact of ObamaCare on health care or if they also considered the economic and tax consequences. Despite Obama’s promises, I don’t think the economic costs will be borne solely by individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000.
— DRJ
And yet people also say that some unnamed “others” will be helped. Probably because the news media keeps telling them that.
The worst care of believing the other guy, instead of one’s own two eyes that I’ve seen in some time.
Kudos to Obama’s propagandists.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/24/2010 @ 11:57 pmWow. And I keep hearing from certain folks around here that the majority of Americans like this idea, and that it will help them. Funny thing, that. Who knew?
Eric Blair (21af67) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:05 amKeeping the Senate (and the House) busy with HCR, will keep them from doing warm elsewhere.
Neo (7830e6) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:49 amSome employees are now getting letters from their employers telling them what to expect in the next year as a consequence of Obamacare. That should get their attention. Medtronic has warned employees of a potential one thousand layoffs.
Jobs, jobs, jobs
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:00 am“A CBS News poll indicates 62% of Americans want Republicans to challenge ObamaCare:”
If we want the GOP to run on repeal, how should we have answered this question?
“A majority of Americans continue to say that they find the bill to be confusing and do not understand what it means for them or their family. ”
That’s a surprise.
imdw (3bf1a8) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:00 am“A CBS News poll indicates 62% of Americans want Republicans to challenge ObamaCare:”
If we want the GOP to run on repeal, how should we have answered this question? – imdw
Oh, I get it. Those tricksey 41% of the Dems said “Yes” because they know; deep down, this will be the death-nail for the Repubs if they keep fighting it. Insidious. Good going Dems, to have such forethought. Let’s break those evil Repubs once and for all. And then we can build a glorious nation where no one has to work and everything is provided for free.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:21 amWait! Obama just got a law passed outlawing sickness and death and people are fighting it?
Of course, Obama and the Democrats have figured out how to use just the right amount of socialism to make our lives perfect. The problem with those dumb Russians is they just weren’t as smart as Obama.
MU789 (6a1add) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:32 amComment by Corwin — 3/25/2010 @ 5:21 am
You think the Dems are trying to get the GOP to flinch on running on repeal?
On a related note, does anyone think very possible imdw works at one of the Democrat organizations, DNC, DCCC etc?
Gerald A (e55578) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:57 amIt’s a little late for that. We gave them control. The bill has become law. Repeal is not possible for years, which probably means forever. The most we can do now is try to mitigate and educate –
Scream the 10th Amendment, and that Federal regulation of interstate commerce should not compel participation in commerce, and that the idea that we can afford this is a fantasy. It is not a new entitlement, it is a new source of revenue. Yell this from the rooftops. Paint it on your foreheads.
People need to know why this was a mistake so they don’t repeat it.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 3/25/2010 @ 7:28 amEven more importantly, Democrats have lost independants on the issue. Brilliant work.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/25/2010 @ 7:29 am“You think the Dems are trying to get the GOP to flinch on running on repeal?” – Gerald
It’s a mind game. I was being sarcastic in #6 (if that wasn’t apparent).
I don’t hold out much hope for the Repubs to organize to a great enough degree to repeal anything. They may run on repeal, but it would take a landslide of historic proportions to do the job. I expect some Dems and many Independents will likewise use that in their campaigns – especially in light of how some in the press are finally discussing what is really in the Law(s).
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/25/2010 @ 7:38 amI still believe Repubs and Dems don’t care that much about being re-elected. What is gained by being re-elected? The spotlight, yes. And many perks. But with the Pension and practically guaranteed high-paying, high-influence lobbying jobs, there’s not a great downside to losing.
I think we are all just fools believing one party is better than the other. Both simple play off the other and we blindly follow one or the other.
DRJ: Just a note: Challenge and repeal are not the same thing.
You also should assume there are some on the left, like me, in the poll who want the Repubs to continue to challenge Obamacare b/c we believe it will hurt the Repubs. I personally want them to hang their hats on the repeal fantasy, so Democrats can roll out every sick child who was ever denied health care for any reason.
That more people now think the bill will have no effect shows the Dem messaging machine is working.
Not surprisingly, you neglected to mention support for the bill in the poll rose 5 points after the vote.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 7:42 amHow about the states start calling for a Constitutional Convention to place clear limits on federal power?
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/25/2010 @ 7:51 amso Democrats can roll out every sick child who was ever denied health care for any reason.
Typical Trollish response.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 8:11 am“so Democrats can roll out every sick child who was ever denied health care for any reason.”
Myron,
You have to admit, that is a brazen statement that does nothing but provoke. I think nearly every sad case example the President has used has been found to be fraudulent on at least some level. Notwithstanding the controversy over whether the Law actually fixes the pre-existing coverage portion; you write as if using the Sally Struthers tactic is a good thing.
Costs and Benefits are the question. Everyone wants people to be cared for. But do you want the Government to determine who gets what, when and how much? To take away more of your freedoms (and money)?
Maybe you don’t see this as a government take-over. Or maybe that is what you want. But many (the majority, still) don’t like it.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/25/2010 @ 8:42 amMyron’s side won, yet he still screeches about demagouging the bill. Wonder why?
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 9:07 am[…] CBS Poll: “Most Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill” DRJ @ 11:26 pm […]
Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » More on the health care bill (73d96f) — 3/25/2010 @ 9:10 amAnd not suprisingly, you only seem to find polls important when you agree with them. So the current polls showing a majority opposing this Chicago witches’ brew of corruption, payoffs, and lack of foresight and fiscal responsibilty can be ignored because…the press will push and push and push?
Because there won’t be any results from which people could benefit from years. And how are things being explaining, regarding a bill that the “yea” voters haven’t even read?
You are just cheerleading “nice thoughts.” No one knows what the bill will cost, as you very well know (CBO didn’t have the data, as they freely admit).
But I’m glad you like polls. We’ll see how you like them as time goes on. Scratch a progressive leftist like you, and we all find elitists who just know better than those poor unwashed voters.
You really don’t know better, after all.
Eric Blair (21af67) — 3/25/2010 @ 9:13 amYou also should assume there are some on the left, like me, in the poll who want the Repubs to continue to challenge Obamacare b/c we believe it will hurt the Repubs.
A few months ago you repeated the fantasy the Dems had big losses in the 1994 election because health care didn’t pass then. So they should actually come through this election with small losses or even gains, right genius?
Gerald A (e55578) — 3/25/2010 @ 10:26 amSteny Hoyer goes to a local GM dealer in Washington, D.C. with the intention of buying a brand new vehicle. Steny looks around and finds one he likes.
After going back and forth with the salesman, Steny settles on a price of $45,000. Steny and the salesman go back to the office to complete the paperwork. Steny works out a 4-year payment plan, and signs on the bottom line.
The salesman shakes Steny’s hand and says, “Thanks Congressman Hoyer, the car will be ready for pickup in 4 years.” Steny says, “What are you talking about? Where are the keys to my new car?”
The salesman replies, “No, you don’t understand, Congressman. You make payments for 4 years… THEN we give you the car. You know, just like your health plan”.
Steny, with a choking voice, says to the salesman, “But that’s not fair”.
Andrew (e23267) — 3/25/2010 @ 10:48 amSo the current polls showing a majority opposing this Chicago witches’ brew of corruption, payoffs, and lack of foresight and fiscal responsibilty can be ignored because…the press will push and push and push?
Of course they can be ignored, because Myron and his proles will make sure that children who are sick will be used shamelessly as props in order to further their cause. I’ve seen and actually met with a few children with cancer during my times at the hospital, and a more repugnant chain of thought I can scarcely imagine. However, since it’s coming from Muron, no surprise whatsoever.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 11:07 amBTW, we all know that Muron only believes polls coming from the Daily Kos, since he’s stated that their hired pollster is absolutely spot – on with their objectivity and professionalism, despite all evidence to the contrary. Right, Muron?
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 11:09 am“I think we are all just fools believing one party is better than the other. Both simple play off the other and we blindly follow one or the other.”
– Corwin
I’m actually writing my departmental honors thesis on that, right now (more or less) – tracing back a number of the competitive failings of our government to institutional components of the two-party system, like single-member geographic districts. The parallels between our two-party system and a cut-and-dried monopoly/duopoly are actually a lot stronger than I’d originally realized: structural cost advantages (in the form of incumbency advantages: name-recognition, franking privileges, etc.), barriers to entry (plurality thresholds coupled with “wasted vote” mentality/sophisticated voting), tacit collusion to preserve the cartel (catalogued by scholars like David Mayhew and Theodore Lowi), and perhaps most obviously an excessively limited number of producing firms.
All of which is to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 3/25/2010 @ 11:33 amAs an American, an angry at this being forced down our throats American, an American angry that Congress and the White House will be exempt from this health care …… I hope and pray that conservatives in DC and conservatives AG’s in all the states KEEP FIGHTING THIS HEALTH CARE REFORM as it is.
Tear it up.
Start from scratch.
Change the face of Congress (House & Senate) in 2010
LLSinSCV (7bef02) — 3/25/2010 @ 11:44 amChange the face of White House and Senate in 2012
#23 Leviticus, sounds like a dry read. 😉
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/25/2010 @ 11:58 amSeriously, it looks like the vast majority is being heard by the gov’t less and less. And I can see no reason for them to listen. At the same time, the squeaky wheels get triple-greased (even after they remove the grease for future use, to extend the analogy).
Does or will your thesis include possible recommendations? Do you (or did you) find a time when this shift became more apparent? I would contend that when the country was still young (and the Feds had much less control) two parties could and did work (we did have more than two parties for some periods as well).
Yeah, the third section of my thesis makes a case (or will, when it’s finished) for a national closed party-list ballot system of proportional representation as a replacement for our current system of FPP elections in single member geographic districts (in addition to the repeal of the 17th amendment to compensate for any potential losses in localized representation that would occur from such a switch), all viewed through a lens which places primary importance on the preservation of Madisonian separation of powers.
I know that a PR system might strike a lot of people around here as a bad idea, but I think it would have a lot of beneficial effects. Introducing a few more parties into the mix would do wonders for the responsiveness and accountability of the two major parties (per theories of responsible party government advanced by Woodrow Wilson and a lot of his acolytes). It would do away with the aforementioned entry barriers, and would at least mitigate the structural cost advantages associated with incumbency, as well as the incentives to collude. More abstractly, it would allow for the descriptive representation of an electorate which cannot be truly represented under a two-party system like ours, which assigns representative responsibility to geographic regions of diverse ideological composition.
…
Sorry to lapse into thesis speak – it’s at the forefront of my mind, at the moment. It’s exciting stuff, for me. I enjoy it. I’ll probably post the main points of the thesis over at the Jury, when it’s all done, and see what everyone thinks about the proposed remedies.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 3/25/2010 @ 12:11 pmI appreciate the information (though I had to reread it a few times). 😉
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/26/2010 @ 5:04 amI think many people would point to Italy when they hear about a multi-party government. It needn’t be that way. It’s obvious our system, as time wears on, becomes problematic as both parties try to consolidate their powers/stances around particular issues. The citizens retain views that cover a spectrum of positions on an issue while two parties can only represent two aspects. And an individual that cares about X, Y but not Z only partial fits under Party A part of the time.
(I know, it would take a lot more explaining to cover ideas like that.)
I agree with your point – an electorate which cannot be truly represented under a two-party system like ours. We become more diverse while our two parties become more rigid.
Maybe the Independents will make more headway this Fall.