Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Is health care getting more popular?

A new Kaiser Family Foundation national poll shows support for President Barack Obama's health care bill bumping up in a significant way over the past month, data that seems to affirm the idea pushed by Administration officials that the legislation will ultimately be a net political positive for their party.

Forty eight percent of adults tested in Kaiser's June survey had a favorable view of the law while 41 percent had an unfavorable view. That marks a reversal from the May Kaiser numbers where those who saw the legislation in a favorable light (41 percent) were outnumbered by those who viewed the law unfavorably (44 percent).

Interestingly, the favorable/unfavorable numbers for the health care law are remarkably consistent in the Kaiser numbers even when the sample is slimmed down to registered or even likely voters -- both of which are far more predictive of electoral outcomes than an "adults" sample.

Forty eight percent of registered voters felt favorably about the law while 42 percent saw it an unfavorable light; among likely voters, the numbers stood at 49 percent favorable/43 percent unfavorable.

While those numbers have to be encouraging to Democrats from the White House on down, there are other data points in the Kaiser poll that suggest that the overall support for the health care bill may be slightly misleading as it relates to the 2010 election.

Broadly, the public is still very conflicted about whether a congressman's vote for the health care bill is a good, bad or indifferent thing.

Thirty five percent said a congressman's vote for the bill made them more likely to back that Member in the fall but a near-equal 32 percent said it made them more likely to oppose the candidate. One in three (31 percent) said how a congressman's vote wouldn't make a major difference in who they voted for in November.

But, and this is the important bit as it relates to the fall, there is a significant intensity gap between Democrats and Republicans on the law. Nearly half (46 percent) of self-identifying Republicans said that a congressman's vote in favor of health care made them "much more likely" to oppose the Member's re-election bid. By contrast, just 31 percent of Democrats said they were "much more likely" to support a Member in the fall if he/she voted for the health care legislation.

In midterm elections -- traditionally lower turnout affairs -- intensity matters hugely and Republican pollsters, perhaps not surprisingly, insist that they are seeing that sort of intensity gap on health care in surveys they are conducting.

It's worth noting that in the electoral Petri dish of Pennsylvania's 12th district special election last month, the Democratic candidate, who won, said he would not have voted for health care but stopped short of calling for the bill's repeal. Republicans claimed that was evidence that the bill was an anchor around the necks of vulnerable Democrats; Democrats concluded from the results that the GOP push for repeal was an electoral loser.

Resurgent Republic, a Republican polling conglomerate, on Tuesday unveiled results from a series of focus groups conducted by GOP pollsters Glen Bolger and Jan van Lohuizen conducted in five states over the last few weeks that, they argued, reflects a generally negative perception about the bill among independents.

"It looked like backroom politics," said van Lohuizen of the legislation, adding that the process by which the bill passed took away "any appearance" of President Obama as the "change" candidate.

Where the findings of Kaiser and Bolger/van Lohuizen most deeply diverge, however, is in how much people actually know about the bill.

"Average voters do not know what is in this bill," insisted van Lohuizen. "They do not know what is coming down the pike."

The Kaiser data, on the other hand, shows that not only do "a majority of Americans express familiarity with a wide range of provisions" but that the vast majority of those provisions are quite popular.

Do voters genuinely know and like the bill? Or do they have a negative perception about it, a perception that only worsens the more they find out about what's in the law?

That question should be answered decisively -- or semi-decisively -- in the fall election. (That's what elections are for anyway, right?)

Republicans are placing a big bet on the idea that health care will hurt more than help Democrats this fall.

"I strongly urge all Democrats who voted for the health care bill to run ads touting the bill," said Bolger sarcastically. "They need to run lots of ads to convince the American people its a great idea."

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 30, 2010; 11:54 AM ET
Categories:  Health Care  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Senate appointees everywhere!
Next: West Virginia pols weigh moving Byrd special election to November

Comments

Mr. Cillizza try as you may to build support and justify the program, Health Care Reform will be the worst piece of legislation passed in the 21st Century. The financial signs are already pointing in that direction. The country will never be able to pay the tab.

Posted by: Bockscar | July 5, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

This is an article printed yesterday noting that persons whose care may be denied by committee principally due to the cost of care for an individual. I thought there were no death panels? If someone is too expensive to treat, kill them. I'm certain that you won't see this article in liberal publications like the Washington Post.

-------------------------------------------

Health law risks turning away sick
By Julian Pecquet - 07/01/10 07:13 PM ET


The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.


Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.


Administration officials insist they can make changes to the program to ensure it lasts until 2014, and that it may not have to turn away sick people. Officials said the administration could also consider reducing benefits under the program, or redistributing funds between state pools. But they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility.

Posted by: Dodgers1 | July 4, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

This a an article about Obama's health care program published today. Is this an example of caring by the Democrats? Under the health care program, Americans whose medical expenses may be too high, will be dropped from all health insurance coverage. Isn't this the death panel that every liberal said was a lie. Yes, they said, all Americans will get health care coverage. This is closer to the Nazis model for social change.

------------------------------------------

Health law risks turning away sick
By Julian Pecquet - 07/01/10 07:13 PM ET

The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.


Posted by: Dodgers1 | July 2, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

@ mm,

How typical. I never called JRM a liar. In fact, I specifically allowed that the source of the misinformation may have been his/her HR dept.
Yet another example of your inability to keep the facts straight.
JRM stated that his EMPLOYER was switching HC plan providers. Federal law prohibits exclusion of pre-exisiting conditions coverage under these circumstances, and has since 1996.
But, hey, if you want to imagine that Obama and the Dems ran Congress in 1996, or that ObamaCare was passed then, go ahead. It'll likely just be another delusion amongst many, which is becoming pretty much the only way of defending this Administration's record.

Posted by: OttoDog | July 1, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

ottodog, you have called JRM a liar based on a few sentences describing his situation. The company WAS switching insurance carriers. Insurance coverage was not continuous -- it was NEW. Depending on the size of the company, other carriers may have declined to write for that pool, may have offered very high premiums, may have rewritten coverage to exclude pre-existing conditions, etc, etc. A dozen paths are available to insurance companies to deny coverage. To call JRM a liar when he has so briefly described what happened to HIM is insulting.

HCR is attempting to create an environment where the consumer has some power in the relationship with the insurer. This will result in lower premiums and better coverage... as anyone working for a government or a large company will tell you.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 1, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

12Bar


This is Obama's mess - and he is making it worse.

Can't the democrats take responsibility for something ???


geesh - this is absolutely ridiculous -

The democrats want to run for election, hold office, get paychecks, make decisions - THAT MEANS YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.


What a joke.


.

Posted by: LaserLight | July 1, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH


FROM USA TODAY:


The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation's economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since just after World War II, according to a long-term budget outlook released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.


Republicans, who have been talking a lot about the debt in recent months, pounced on the report. "The driver of this debt is spending," said New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. "Our existing debt will be worsened by the president's new health care entitlement programs…as well as an explosion in existing health care and retirement entitlement spending as the Baby Boomers retire."

At the end of 2008, the debt equaled about 40 % of the nation's annual economic output, according to the CBO.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

ottodog,

Please make your point. I really don't want to read the whole article and try to guess what you are saying.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

what the hell are you talking about. We all pay together, we all benefit together. Where are the pools of conservative money?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

True story: I was on a team of investors who bought a company for peanuts. Then, we handed it off to a management team who proceeded to fire most of the employees, p*ss off the rest, and in effect lose the technology, which was the only valuable asset. Then, they wanted us to hand it back to the selling corporation and try to get our money back. I can tell what the outcome of that was: we broke it, we owned it.

That's what the Republicans did. They started with a surplus, then they took our country and through deregulation they broke the financial system and put us into two wars that have gone on so long, we've even forgotten how many years we've been there. Then they handed the whole mess over to the Democrats in 2008, and now demand to know why things are such a mess two years later.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: OttoDog | June 30, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


I suppose you really want the conservatives to pay all the bills when they come.

Right ?

You aren't lining the up the leftists to pay the bills you run up, are you ???


.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


Meanwhile you hold all the credit cards, and your motto is Charge, Charge, Charge, Charge, Charge.


.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

@ margaretmeyers,

Read the relevant post from JRM2. NONE of those circumstances applied, yet he was told (or chose to tell us readers) that ObamaCare was the reason his son avoided losing coverage of his pre-existing condition.
As 37 or Laser or whatever wrote, those statements were patently false.

Posted by: OttoDog | June 30, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

uh, 37th, if I had your history of making accurate market predictions, I'd quit right now.

When Obama was elected, right wingers were predicting double digit inflation 2 years later. Like about now.

Now, you're saying that in another two years, the currency will crash and the U.S. sovereign debt will be worthless.

Someday in this century that may occur, but it sure isn't in two years. I hope you don't invest your own money in these looney theories.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


And the nation can see how irresponsible the democrats are with the nation's finances......

.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

When conservatives help run the country, THAT's when I'm going to care what they think. When conservatives cross the aisle and work with Democrats, that's when I'm going to care. When conservatives try to get the problems of this country solved, instead of voting NO on everything, that's when I'm going to care. When conservatives quit trying to make this administration and government fail, that's when I'm going to care.

Until then, your opinion is just so much hot air, sour grapes, and whining. You are just voices crying in the wilderness.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


Another election is coming - and in 2012 there will be another election.

And at some point - this GIANT DEFICIT BOMB will be ticking down to its last seconds -

And the markets will care......

.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Let me restate it:

I don't give a good gol' damn what conservatives think.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

12Bar says


I don't give a damn what conservatives have to say.


______________________________


Exactly - the conservatives tried endlessly to get the leftists to be realistic about the TRUE COSTS OF THE HEALTH CARE PLAN -

And to try to draw up a reasonable plan that could be paid for properly.

THAT DISCUSSION was promised by Obama over and over again in his commitment to BIPARTISANSHIP - but that discussion was refused over and over again - and it never happened.


NOW the nation is on the road to CERTAIN FINANCIAL RUIN. And the democrats do not care what the costs are - they never did and never will.


THE LEFTISTS JUST WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY FOR WHAT THEY WANT.

.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

@37th,

Your arguments don't matter. All your hysterics don't matter. Too late. The law is passed. Your ideas, whatever they are, were defeated. Your ideas are irrelevant.

I couldn't care less what you think. I'm going to get healthcare after waiting for 10 years and I am VERY pleased.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


All those insurance company abuses can be solved through proper regulation.

The country does not need - can not afford - a massive government program and massive new taxes.


This Obama health care plan is going to open up the mother of all budget deficits.

The subsidies in Obama's plan are an unknown quantity - and that UNKNOWN IS GOING TO BE BIGGER THAN AN GIANT TAMALE.

In addition, there are incentives in Obama's plan which will cause private businesses to dump people into the public plans - and seek out subsidies.

So, at this point no one really has a good estimate of what these subsidies are going to be.

However, the people who have incomes just above the subsidy level are going to get SLAMMED.


Then one day - Congress is going to get a report telling them that the health care portion of the federal budget has a MASSIVE DEFICIT - AND NEW OBAMA TAXES ARE NEEDED TO FILL THAT DEFICIT OR THE NATIONAL DEBT WILL BALLOON OUT OF CONTROL.

Then what are you going to say - when Congress says that the country can not afford to pay the TRUE COST OF THIS MASSIVE PROGRAM ?

.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

@mm,

You are right. The law is passed against tremendous odds. President Obama makes history for passing this and I am grateful. I don't give a damn what conservatives have to say. They lost the argument.

All I want is what every one of them has--health insurance so I can get the barest kind of health care without risking financial ruin.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

My daughter takes antidepressants and she is uninsurable in the individual market. She is a court reporter working on a contract basis. After her husband got laid off and lost their health insurance, my daughter got a job in federal court and they sold everything and moved across the country.

That's how lack of insurance can change your life.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

12bar, we are stamping old ground here. We instituted reform because reform was needed.
37th is a flea. He's more concerned about the knife hitting the bottom of the Fluff jar than he is about anything else.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

My sister-in-law is a nurse; the healthiest person in my family, she's fit, slim, eats right, exercises.

She's a nurse but she can't get health insurance. She has a genetic disorder that runs in Irish families: iron builds up in her blood. The very effective treatment is to donate blood every month, which she does, and she lives without any side effects from her illness. But no insurance company will touch her.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

@mm,

37th who thinks he understands my healthcare situation better than I do, and I've been living with it, is sheer arrogance.

I don't know about pre-existing conditions for under employee health plans, but I guarantee that for the individual market, there is no such guarantee. Once my COBRA ran out, I was in the individual market.

In the individual market, you can be cancelled for getting sick, cancelled because they think you might get sicker (I had a brush with this), and nobody "has" to cover you for anything.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Ottodog leaves out that under that law the insurance company did have to continue your coverage but they could jack your rates to a level where you couldn't pay the premium anymore

and then

you were on your own. No longer continuous.

If you lost a job or changed jobs --
you were on your own.

If the insurance company decided not to cover your particular treatment plan you could ask them to reconsider, but mostly --
you were on your own.

Reform was enacted because reform was needed.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

@37th,

You know two states I'm not from: Oregon and Massachusetts. The day I tell you where I live is the day I will take cyanide. Why would I want to give you any personal information about me? And why do you want to know?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

which state are you from?


I thought you might have mentioned Oregon before - is it Louisiana or Texas?

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

@ JRM2,

Your HR Dept shined you on about "instituting ObamaCare early". The previous poster's correct - pre-existing conditions were already guaranteed to be covered under EXISTING health insurance laws passed in the mid 1990's, so long as the coverage was CONTINUOUS. You were never in any danger of losing coverage.
The Republicans passed that particular law.
The ObamaCare change allows someone to quit a plan for months or years, then guarantees them coverage of pre-existing conditions should they re-enroll. It pretty much eliminates any means for actuarily lowering the premiums of the covered since ObamaCare insists that EVERYONE gets equal c overage and premiums, regardless of how long they've been covered or how horrific the costs they bring into the pool of insureds is.

Posted by: OttoDog | June 30, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

37th knows everyone's business better than they know it themselves. 12 bar, JRM -- you were just confused about not having coverage for yourself and your family. It was there all along according to 37th.

All you people who can't get coverage or can't afford coverage -- talk to 37th. He'll set you up.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

No, I'm not from Oregon, nor do I live there. Playing gotcha now?

I'll bet you are trying to figure out why I'm not really uninsured, aren't you. How I could get medical care from SOMEONE. Let me give you a list of what other conservatives have come up with: appealing to churches, moving to Massachusetts, negotiating with doctors, asking pharmaceutical companies for free drugs, and asking the Susan Komen organization for free help. So, I'll just save you some time.

Meanwhile, thank you President Obama for resurrecting healthcare from the dead and getting it passed. I never thought I'd see it in my lifetime.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


Didn't you say you were from Oregon ?

.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

That's what it's like in my life. I wait for pain.

I don't have to read what the Democrats are saying.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 7:31 PM
---

And good luck to you. I'd hate to think no one was going to benefit from this.

Posted by: Brigade | June 30, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

I've been uninsurable for 10 years, and now I can join a high risk pool that the new healthcare bill created, and I'm being accused of following Democratic propaganda?

What the hell? Propaganda? No, this is personal. No one has to tell ME what to think about my own healthcare.

I might actually be able to visit my oncologist, my old surgeon and really take a look at the old tumor site. Right now, I can't afford that kind of care--I just have to wait for symptoms that the cancer is back. Like pain, because it usually comes back in the bones.

That's what it's like in my life. I wait for pain.

I don't have to read what the Democrats are saying.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

laser/37th,

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. When you walk in the shoes of the uninsured and uninsurable, I'll listen to you.

Until then, buzz off because you are just following your talking points. I'm talking about something a lot more important -- and that is health. And thank you, Democrats, for the courage to pass a law that starts to solve the worst problems of our healthcare system.

And no thanks to the R's, who voted against healthcare for people like me.

I suppose you think I can get help with my healthcare by begging at the local churches (actually proposed to me by conservatives). That's the Republican solution--begging.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

JRM2 and 12Bar


You both are pushing some propaganda by the democratic party - the problem is your points are DECEPTIVE

And on at least one point, an outright lie.

It is clear and simple.

Your party is outrageous - the only they can do is lie to the American People.

Obama's platform in 2008 - lies. Someone has to keep you honest.


SURE - you don't want anyone pointing out your lies.

.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

the health insurance companies are hard at work looking for every loophole in Obama's crazy plan they can find.
----------------------------------
They sure are. But the loopholes are a WHOLE lot smaller and fewer than the loopholes under the Republicans.

I just lived through 10 years of being uninsurable. The Republicans could have done something about it anytime they wanted, and I would have supported them. Hell, I would have voted R. But did they? Hell, no.

So don't take credit now. That is the biggest lie you ever told 37th. And you've told some whoppers.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

OK Laserlight, umm I mean37th.

Would you please just stay away for good now?

Posted by: JRM2 | June 30, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

to 37th aka laserlight,

I have a policy which covers hospitalization only with a deductible of $5,000 PER illness PER year. You can figure out how useful that is to getting followup care for cancer or anything else.

It's ok if you get in a car crash and have to be hospitalized, but you better make sure they don't release you same day.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

JRM2


Your posting at 6:04 is deceptive.

The Republicans put through the law on pre-existing conditions in the 1990s.

Your health insurance company is NOT being your friend.


YOU should get on your knees and THANK REPUBLICANS THAT YOUR CHILD IS GETTING HEALTH CARE.


That health insurance company sure isn't doing it because they want to be good to you.

Quite the contrary, the health insurance companies are hard at work looking for every loophole in Obama's crazy plan they can find.


Again - you belong on your hands and knees - THANKING REPUBLICANS.


.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The only way the democrats can force their health care through is on a pack of lies

It is unbelievable.

.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

You NEVER said you didn't have health insurance


In fact, I think at several points you were discussing the health insurance that you did have.


.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

JRM2

Except that the health care law enacted in the 1990s required ALL health insurance companies to insure everyone with pre-existing condition IF the health insurance has been continuous.

So, you are WRONG - the law enacted by the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IN THE 1990s would have made sure that your child was insured.


You are being deceptive.

Every abuse you can speak about can be dealth with with vigorous regulation of the health insurance companies -

The country does NOT need a massive health insurance program or MASSIVE NEW TAXES.

Either you are lying or someone is lying to you. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.


.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

My company recently switched our health insurance provider, at first I was really scared because I have a one year old son with a very serious heart condition. If the new insurance had a yearly or lifetime cap or they refused him because of pre-existing conditions I would be immediately financially ruined and chances are my son would not get the surgeries and care he needs to survive.

When I talked to the rep she told me that they are adopting ahead of time provisions in the HCR bill, not only can they not refuse him, my premium is actually cheaper and he can be on my insurance until he's 27. No yearly or lifetime caps either.

Thank you UHC and thank you Obama and the Democratic leadership for helping save my son. You guys and gals risked it all, that takes guts and leadership.

Meanwhile the GOP holds a pizza party and screams "no!"

Posted by: JRM2 | June 30, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"Government run health care:

VA Hospital Exposes Vets to HIV
Posted by: bumblingberry"
----
Well then it is a good thing that Obamacare isn't Government run by your logic.

Oh, and by the way, as soon as you cons stop raiding funds for the VA we will see the improvement in care.

Posted by: JRM2 | June 30, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

And if one counts the people who don't like it because they think it doesn't go far enough then it is probably overwhelmingly popular.

Another con meme destroyed.

Go ahead, campaign on repealing it.

Posted by: JRM2 | June 30, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

@12BarBlues: congratulations on coverage. That you were denied it speaks volumes about the immorality and wrongness of the free market.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 30, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

It is almost July 1st. I've been watching the news for the new high risk pools to go into effect.

I just signed up for the new Federal High Risk Pool created by the HC law. For the first time in TEN years, I may actually get health insurance that will enable me to get regular health care.

Thank you, President Obama and the Democrats. No thanks to the Republicans who don't care whether people with cancer get insurance.

Yippee!!!!! This is the best news.

Oh, and btw, before the snarky comments, I will not qualify for subsidies. I will pay the full premium.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 30, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Healtchcare is as popular as ever. It's the healthcare bill, whose total economic effects want be apparent for some time, that is the problem for Barry.

Posted by: leapin | June 30, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

thebobbob speaks thetruthtruth

Posted by: RollTide1 | June 30, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

You mean there aren't jack-booted thugs on the streets implementing the Socialist Takeover of America??? I don't understand? Republicans promised that's what would happen! Never trust a Republican.

Fear, Hatred, Distortion, Distraction and Division is all they have to offer.

Posted by: thebobbob | June 30, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Government run health care:

VA Hospital Exposes Vets to HIV

"What about the Veterans Administration?" screech proponents of socialized medicine. "That's run by the government." Yes, I can tell:

John Cochran VA Medical Center in St. Louis has recently mailed letters to 1,812 veterans telling them they could contract hepatitis B, hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after visiting the medical center for dental work, said Rep. Russ Carnahan. …
The issue stems from a failure to clean dental instruments properly, the hospital told CNN affiliate KSDK.
Not to worry, bureaucrats have made everything right by setting up "education centers to help patients who may have been infected." If that doesn't help, maybe they'll convene a committee to discuss whether the problem should be discussed by future committees.

Let me predict the liberal rebuttal: "I told you not only homosexuals and junkies get HIV!"

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 30, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Is health care [reform] getting more popular?

Is 49 bigger than 41? Matter of opinion. Arithmetic is for overeducated liberals who lift their pinkies as they sip effeminate fizzy drinks.

We report, you decide.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 30, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

What we had with Kagan also was her claiming that she wanted a "moderate" role for the Court.


Sotomeyer told the country she was a moderate - only to vote firmly with the liberal block all year.

In fact - on Monday, Sotomeyer voted against individual gun rights in the Supreme Court case released that day - however last year she told the Senate that she supported just the opposite.

Not surprising that Obama's nominees appear to be deceptive in front of the Senate - to the point of outright lying.


.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic prospects for this fall are starting to look better and better every single day.


All they have to do is let the GOP talk and show their true colors.


-Social Security is Welfare.
-GOPer's hate TARP, but can't wait for the tax payers to bail out BP.
-GOPer's refuse to extend unemployment.
-GOPer's love Republican deficits, but hate it when the Democrats spending creates deficits that actually help people!


Democrats should be able to capitalize on these stories all day long every single day from now until this fall, because at least they have ideas.


The GOP's idea of a fresh take on policy for America is - more TAX CUTS for the RICH!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sydlY3No7TY

Posted by: DrainYou | June 30, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, we heard Elena Kagan downplay her role in barring military recruiting from Harvard Law School. She pretends that her break from policy was modest, hardly worthy of note, and in any case was later reversed. She says she and university president Larry Summers were in virtual lock-step.

That certainly is not how it was perceived at the time. In a 2004 masthead editorial, the Harvard Crimson condemned Summers for not getting the university involved in litigating the Solomon Amendment, which allows the DoD to bar federal funding to universities who keep recruiters off campus. But the same editorial sings the praises of Elena Kagan, then dean of the law school, for her “swift action” in “barring the military from official recruiting” after a ruling of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Take it from a Crimson editor who was often a dissenting vote on these matters: It was crystal clear during this era that Kagan was the radical on the issue of the military on campus. It was Summers — and virtually Summers alone — who emerged as the pro-military voice of the campus and who guided Kagan and others back onto the reservation.

Specter: Your answers throughout hearing haven’t been substantive. Leaves issue of what we as senators do, short of voting no.

In her Round 2, Feinstein repeated Dems' flagrant misrepresentation of Ledbetter ruling.]

On takings: Kagan: Not clear whether Kelo‘s public-purpose test would apply, or be satisfied, outside context of comprehensive redevelopment plan.

Discussion of Kagan’s White House role on guns.

Grassley asks questions bearing on whether there’s a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. No meaningful discussion.


Are we about to get another completely unqualified liberal in a very important position? Maybe Kagen can start chanting hope, change, blame, Mmmmmmm Mmmmmmm, MMMMM

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 30, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Bad news for President Obama and congressional Democrats is common these days, but these results unveiled Tuesday are simply dismal. Asked to compare Obama to a car, one Iowan chose an Edsel: “Something that had a lot of hype, but failed to live up to expectations.” Another older man described Obama as “a wrecked Ferrari, something that looked great to many people, but was now ruined.”

“In August 2009, [our focus groups found] there was a wait-and-see attitude towards the president. That has changed,” summarized Gillespie. “There is not only growing concern about spending, debt and the direction of economy but creeping doubts about the president’s leadership abilities, which is probably a more troublesome concern to the White House and the president’s supporters.”

Independents said that the manner in which President Obama responded to the oil spill made them more apprehensive about what would happen should a terrorist attack or foreign-policy crisis occur.

I am sure everything will be fine, as long as they only try to blow up a golf course. Obungler will be right on it in no time.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 30, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Are oil spills getting more popular?

http://vimeo.com/12933322

A profile in incompetence.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 30, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Kaiser and AARP have both been careful and thorough in their research on HCR. They are excellent sources for sound and realistic information both about HCR and

more importantly

very realistic about where we were headed without HCR.

The test isn't about getting HCR perfect on the first try. This is about better HCR over time. The current system is a mess and is only reinforcing the worst and most wasteful aspects of health care in this country. Change HAD to happen.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

STALIN for SCOTUS! Rah, Rah:

As solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan argued in front of the Supreme Court that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban certain political pamphlets. She also strongly implied that some political books, if they were partisan enough, could also be censored. Kagan’s extraordinary claims emerged during the second oral argument of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the campaign finance case made famous by President Barack Obama when he publicly excoriated the justices for their ruling during his State of the Union address.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 30, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

funny...


"Republicans have spent the better part of two years distancing themselves from bailouts and hitting Democrats for supporting them. But given a choice between continuing the 2008 bank bailout and regulating Wall Street, several Republicans voted last night (and almost all of them will ultimately vote) to keep the bailout alive.

Last night, in a scramble to save the bill in the wake of Sen. Scott Brown's (R-MA) objections to the conference report, Democrats worked with moderate Republicans to figure out a new way to pay for Wall Street reform. What they came up with was pretty simple: end the TARP legislation (i.e., the much-maligned bank bailout) early. Every Republican negotiator on the conference committee objected, some vociferously. "

Posted by: drindl | June 30, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

stupidest comment a politician has ever made.


>>>>>>>>>>.

We could compare it to the smartest comment you ever made ( as if) and then decide. they should be roughly equal.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 30, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

If you're a liberal, you can literally get away with probable murder (Teddy Kennedy), rape (Bill Clinton), children out of wedlock (John Edwards), association with known racists and terrorists (Barack Obama), involvement with the mob (JFK), pimping out gay prostitutes from your apartment (Barney Frank) and membership in the KKK (Robert Byrd), so long as you believe in bigger government and less financial freedom. If you're a conservative, you get ousted for complimenting a racist on his 100th birthday (Trent Lott) or having a consensual affair (John Ensign, Mark Souder, etc.). That's not to say that Lott and Co. shouldn't have resigned -- it's just to say that if they'd been Democrats, they'd be sitting secure in their seats, their brows bound with victorious wreaths.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 30, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Off-topic -- but I just had to share, because this might be the stupidest comment a politician has ever made.

How about that for a column idea, Chris? I can give you a million suggestions. But check this one out:

"In an interview on Scott Hennen’s radio show today, Michelle Bachmann claimed that the purpose of the G-20 was to “bind together the world’s economies.” Neglecting the already interconnected nature of the global economy, Bachman declared that “President Obama is trying to bind the United States into a global economy”

Posted by: drindl | June 30, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Health Care Reform is a long term winner for America. It is a signature achievement for President Obama and this Congress. As time goes by, and people understand how it will really affect them, the Republicans will have a lot to fear from the electorate on this one.

The polls, even internal Republican polls that Chris has ready access to and willingly shares here, will all tell this woeful tale.

Posted by: BobSanderson | June 30, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Rasmussen is totally discredited as a rightwing propaganda outfit.

Their questions are ridiculous slanted, their methodology is clownishly sloppy and their demographics are about 90% republican.

Posted by: drindl | June 30, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

On the blogging issue first - Chris - it is almost a no win situation. I run a blog and get attacked all of the time for blocking comments which I deem a distration or defamatory. Some people just want drama and disinformation.

Good luck with this effort.

HCR - the Founding Fathers had the good sense to know the American people could not be trusted with a direct democracy. Unfortunaltely with reelection guiding every vote we now have a democracy of the loudest voices.

I somehow suspect all the parents whose chldren did not have insurance while in college who now have insurance are very happy with the reform.

The medicare reforms which come into effect in January will actually make home healthcare an option versus sending everyone to a more expensive nursing home.

the press got an F in its coverage of the actual plan - all the press cared about was the drama and distractions - kind of sounds like the bloggers who have been blocked.

Funny thing life is.

Posted by: bobbywc | June 30, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

lol, Rasmussen

Posted by: DDAWD | June 30, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Kaiser who has been a big supporter of the government takeover of health care has segued a poll to support Obumacare.

Health Care Law
52% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Obumacare will not have to be repealed, it will drop dead with a heart attack from its own debt load. The Dimocrats Forest Gump approach to legislation ("Momma said Legislation is like a box of chocolates...")is not working and we can no longer suffer these fools in office.

Throw the bums out on November 02, only 125 days until we can get the change and some hope for our Nation.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | June 30, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Republicans knew that once HCR was enacted and none of the stuff they were trying to scare people with happened, that voters would indeed, see it as a net plus.

This is one of the reasons they fought so hard and dirty against it.

Posted by: drindl | June 30, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Drivl, do us all a favor and reconsider the boycott.

Is it just that you really have absolutely nothing else in your life?

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 30, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

What good is government health care when a multi-agency fusion center shadow government is silently TORTURING Americans with microwaves and other radio frequencies?

URGENT TO: POTUS / VPOTUS, WH Staff, Atty. Gen. Holder, Obama cabinet, members of Congress:

HOMELAND FUSION CENTER MICROWAVE CELL TOWER WEAPON SYSTEM SILENTLY ASSAULTS, TORTURES, IMPAIRS 'TARGETED' AMERICANS: VETERAN JOURNALIST

• "Dissidents" and "undesirables" also targeted by multi-agency program for financial sabotage; community-based, police-protected, GPS-enabled vigilante stalking, vandalism, home intrusion; ideology-driven censorship -- a genocidal purge.

All of those cell towers you see all over America are NOT all for phone calls.

Some of them are TORTURE TOWERS -- part of a nationwide microwave/laser radio frequency "directed energy weapon" system that is being used by operatives of the multi-agency Homeland Security-run "fusion center" network to silently torture, impair, and physically and neurologically degrade the functioning and well-being of extrajudicially, unjustly '"targeted" citizens...

And apparently, this precision-targeted domestic weapon system being used to attack and harm U.S. citizens has been deployed WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS or high state officials.

Exhibit A: U.S. Patent No. 7629918, held by Raytheon, for the "Multifunctional Microwave Laser Radio Frequency Directed Energy Weapon System."

BUCKS COUNTY, PA: "Mid-Atlantic States (including D.C.) Centcom of a Fusion Center Gestapo."

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
NowPublic.com/scrivener OR Facebook -- Vic Livingston ("Notes")


Posted by: scrivener50 | June 30, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Personal attacks are all some people are here for. As you say, Marie, hopefully CC will give us the ability to block those individuals.

Posted by: drindl | June 30, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

FYI

All,

1. Ceflynline and Fairlinton: Thanks for your thoughtfulness and patience. I believe that the comments section will get better sooner rather than later so hopefully it will be rewarded.

2. 37th/Heatwave has been banned AGAIN. Not sure what else I can do other than keep banning him. And he will continue to return under other names.

3. ChrisFox/Noa: The comparison between you and 37th is based on your desire to return repeatedly under other names despite being banned. I continue to be baffled as to why you spend so much time getting back to a blog you disdain so much but that's another conversation.

4. To everyone else: Commenting on blogs remains very much a work in progress. The Post's goal is to allow as free a discussion as possible without permitting personal attacks and other online savagery. It seems a pretty easy goal to meet. Treat people online like you would offline.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | June 29, 2010 9:18 PM

Posted by: mariewilson11 | June 30, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Where the findings of Kaiser and Bolger/van Lohuizen most deeply diverge, however, is in how much people actually know about the bill.

...

The Kaiser data ... shows that not only do "a majority of Americans express familiarity with a wide range of provisions" but that the vast majority of those provisions are quite popular."


Oh how frustrating it must be
for the GOP
to see
the libs' predictions come to be.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris said he was turning off your light and we are assuming he will keep his word.

Posted by: mariewilson11 | June 30, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Marie, Ddawd, drinl

You all have said you are leading a boycott

So what's up

There is a word for you SCABS


.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Aren't you loons supposed to be boycotting this blog?

I knew your empty lives offered nothing in substitute.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 30, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris thanks for the Resurgent Republic poll.
Surely it is biased but better than nothing to fill this space.

Posted by: mariewilson11 | June 30, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I knew this poll, no matter how good the news were superficially, would end up terribly bad for the Democrats somewhere in the bowels of it. We needed to look deeply enough.

Republicans just can't stomach the fact that private insurance companies will no longer be able to selectively dump those that get sick from their policies or just avoid insuring them all together for any reason. What is fair is fair! Right?

Why would big government think anyone would want that to end?

How can honest profits be earned in American under the Democrats?

No wonder a carefully reading of this poll shows no one can change Republican minds once they are made up.

Posted by: mariewilson11 | June 30, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Remember that one of the provisions of the law (it's not a bill anymore!) is the closing of the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D. And a breakdown of at least one of these polls indicates that the law is far less popular among seniors than among the rest of the population. Given that the doughnut hole closing kicks in this year, senior citizens might represent some really low hanging fruit in terms of trying to convert people to supporting the law.

Important converts too given that they are reliable voters.

Also, it will probably help when they see their Medicare benefits aren't cut and that they haven't been dragged out in front of death panels. Remember that much of the Republican fear mongering surrounding the law was aimed at seniors. Seeing that the Republican claims were lies should turn some of them around.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 30, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Resurgent Republic, a Republican polling conglomerate, on Tuesday unveiled results from a series of focus groups conducted by GOP pollsters Glen Bolger and Jan van Lohuizen conducted in five states over the last few weeks that, they argued, reflects a generally negative perception about the bill among independents."

You can get exactly the results you want from the wording/dynamics of a focus group question, and that is clearly what this partisan group has done.

Why even cite this when you know it is tainted?

Posted by: drindl | June 30, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company