Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Health Care (Gallup 3/4-7)

Topics: poll

Gallup
3/4-7/10; 1,014 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)

National

Would you advise your representative in Congress to vote for or against a healthcare reform bill similar to the one proposed by President Obama?
45% Vote for, 48% Vote against (chart)

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

I still think that I blame the anti-reform Democrats in the senate and house for delaying this thing. I like him personally but I thought that Kent Conrad was way too indecisive on the budget committee, and the Democrats were dumb to even believe that any Republicans other than possibly Collins, Snowe, and the Asian guy from Lousiana in the house were even considering supporting health reform. I thought after the crap the Democrats put up with last summer, I seriously believed that it would have been enough for them to take charge and pass health reform. The Democrats have delayed and delayed and delayed to the point where many independents are frustrated. The Democrats also had so many conflicting plans from the beginning that they should have known early on whether the public option was worth pursuing or not.

I believe that Obama has truly worked hard to get the health care reform agenda across. COntrary to other progressives, I don't really blame him. I think when be became president though, he wasn't aware that many in his own party were going to make these inside business deals and payoffs to get health reform. He didn't know that many congressman and some Democratic senators were taking huge corporate money from the very industry they want to regulate. Max Baucus has taken more money from big pharma than most Republicans. So has Blanche Lincoln.

Obama's heart has been with the American people, but unfortunately he was hoping many middle of the road democrats would put the underinsured and uninsured before their own interests, but he counted wrong. I think even I may have forseen this coming before Obama did.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

If Democratic politicians pay attention to this poll, it will be foolish and it will mean they took the very bait that big insurance and all the other special interests want to happen.

____________________

twitter.com/strobe3:

Exactly far left..the strange thing is if the conservative dems think by voting AGAINST reform, it would bolster them..they've got another thing coming. The people who are against reform were NEVER going to vote for you and if not Health Care then they will cry Bank Bailout (under Bush), Auto Bailout (Under Bush) or anything else they can dredge up. I like what the president said yesterday, the point of congresscritters is for them to get things done..not stand around and play thumb wars. Strange how they run saying how they will change this that and the other..but as soon as they get up,"well the status quo is not that bad" and where the hell have the republicans been on health care reform for the past 10 yrs, when they controlled congress and/or the white house.

____________________

OKCJ88:

I still wonder why tort reform is such a curse word around Washington. I know that *gasp* it might mean that trial lawyers make less money due to medical malpractice lawsuits. But, in the end it saves the American public more money than most people imagine. I do personally think our health care system does need fixed. But, I do not think currently the solution placed forward is the best solution.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Yeah, there is a pattern between the Democrats who get the biggest corporate contributions and the ones who are the ones who are the least supportive of health reform. Baucus, Kent Conrad, Lincoln, Landreu, Nelson from Nebraska (Who shouldn't be a Democrat) and the worst one of all Evan Bayh whose wife is a multi-millionaire who works for a division of Anthem insurance, who raised their premiums by 39 percent. They money they get from insurance companies is worse than what they give to many Republicans. IT is clearly a huge payoff so that these Conservadems will do everything to delay reform and do everything not to let it happen. They don't work for the people.

I am sort of happy to know this stuff about them now so the DNC and many individuals can give their money to candidates who do want to make a difference in the people's lives, not in the lives of corporations.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Yeah, there is a pattern between the Democrats who get the biggest corporate contributions and the ones who are the ones who are the least supportive of health reform. Baucus, Kent Conrad, Lincoln, Landreu, Nelson from Nebraska (Who shouldn't be a Democrat) and the worst one of all Evan Bayh whose wife is a multi-millionaire who works for a division of Anthem insurance, who raised their premiums by 39 percent. They money they get from insurance companies is worse than what they give to many Republicans. IT is clearly a huge payoff so that these Conservadems will do everything to delay reform and do everything not to let it happen. They don't work for the people.

I am sort of happy to know this stuff about them now so the DNC and many individuals can give their money to candidates who do want to make a difference in the people's lives, not in the lives of corporations.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Yeah, there is a pattern between the Democrats who get the biggest corporate contributions and the ones who are the ones who are the least supportive of health reform. Baucus, Kent Conrad, Lincoln, Landreu, Nelson from Nebraska (Who shouldn't be a Democrat) and the worst one of all Evan Bayh whose wife is a multi-millionaire who works for a division of Anthem insurance, who raised their premiums by 39 percent. They money they get from insurance companies is worse than what they give to many Republicans. IT is clearly a huge payoff so that these Conservadems will do everything to delay reform and do everything not to let it happen. They don't work for the people.

I am sort of happy to know this stuff about them now so the DNC and many individuals can give their money to candidates who do want to make a difference in the people's lives, not in the lives of corporations.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I am not opposed to Tort reform if it would bring the two parties to compromise. I believe that people who suffered from toxic waste, ASbestos in the workplace, or certain kinds of dangerous birth control for example do deserve justice if they died or had serious health problems. Trial lawyers however use the Democrats as a lobbying tool to make big bucks for themselves. It is an issue worth exploring.

____________________

Bigmike:

Farleftandproud:

"The Democrats have delayed and delayed and delayed to the point where many independents are frustrated. The Democrats also had so many conflicting plans from the beginning that they should have known early on whether the public option was worth pursuing or not."

It's called leadership and the WH has not shown any. They let 535 others weigh in first. LBJ or Roanld Reagan would have laid out a plan, given it to Congress, and worked to get it passed. Sure Congress would have tinkered with it a little. But they would have gotten soemthing done. That is what leaders do.

____________________

LordMike:

Tort reform is great until your doctor cuts off the wrong leg. He gets to continue practicing, while you rack up the medical bills with no compensation.

I'd gladly trade tort reform for single payer. That's the contract that most of the world has with their government--if the government takes care of you medically, you don't get the right to sue, but you also won't pay $10,000 a day in the hospital.

Considering that most of the damages in a malpractice suit are for future medical costs, a true universal health care system would automatically reduce damages--it would be a de facto tort reform in and of itself.

In the meantime, we shouldn't have a massive federal government takeover of the right of juries of our peers to assess medical damages, and we shouldn't be protecting bad doctors. The federal government shouldn't come in the way of a wronged patient and the individual jurors who are deciding his case.

Besides, tort reform is a state issue. The states that have implemented tort reform have seen no drop in the price of malpractice insurance. The insurance companies don't just gouge the sick. They gouge doctors, too.

____________________

OKCJ88:

I do not mean tort reform to the extreme. I have a close family member who was involved in a malpractice lawsuit, and the doctor was definitely to blame, but, there are a large number of medical malpractice lawsuits that do not need to occur. Granted, if you go in for an appendectomy and you come out with both legs amputated, you deserve some justice, but there should definitely be some limits. Now if they want to include that in the health care bill, I would come very close to agreeing with it.

____________________

williame123:

@Bigmike

"It's called leadership and the WH has not shown any. They let 535 others weigh in first. LBJ or Roanld Reagan would have laid out a plan, given it to Congress, and worked to get it passed. Sure Congress would have tinkered with it a little. But they would have gotten soemthing done. That is what leaders do."

I guess the great Teddy Roosevelt had no leadership skills since he argued for universal healthcare but couldn't make it happen. The same can be said of FDR on universal healthcare, Truman on universal healthcare and JFK on Medicare (he lost in the Senate despite great rallies of support across the country). Were these presidents all poor leaders?

How could a poor leader like TR get on Mt Rushmore? How could a poor leader like FDR have transformed the country, won WWII and won 4 consecutive elections? How could a poor leader like JFK lead the country through its greatest existential crisis--the Cuban Missile Crisis? How could Truman who built the UN, NATO, the CIA and the national security state in general have been so poor a leader as to fail miserably at Health Care Reform?

Also, LBJ won in '64 with over 61% of the popular vote, had a 68 seat majority in the Senate and a 295 seat majority in the House. Digest that electoral mandate and staggering Congressional advantage. As far as Reagan goes, what great social legislation did he craft and pass? Passing tax cuts is nowhere near as difficult as passing socially transformative legislation. After all, George W. Bush passed 2 massive tax cuts but failed miserably at Social Security privation. How many people do you know who love paying taxes? JFK passed a massive tax cut in '61, but struggled mightily and ultimately failed with Medicare. LBJ and Democrats used the tragedy of his assassination to win big in '64 and push through his signature legislation, Medicare.

Also, if Reagan was such a great leader, why was he humiliated over Iran-Contra by Congress? Why did he embarrass the country in Lebanon by leading us into the quagmire and then cutting and running when the going got tough? Why did he stand impotently by as the Soviets crushed Solidarity in Poland?

Finally, if the best way to show presidential leadership is to write a bill and make Congress pass it, why couldn't Clinton get as far in 1993 with healthcare as Obama has gotten now? Clinton's Bill didn't even get out of Committee! What you and much of the media punditry needs is a panoramic reading of history. It is interesting that whenever historians are interviewed about how Obama is doing so far, they are more circumspect in their analysis as compared to much of the punditry. Could it be because they know more about the highs and lows of past presidents?

IF, and it's a big if, BO gets HCR and Financial Regulatory Reform passed, he would be the most successful domestic policy first- term president since LBJ. Passing socially transformative legislation is very difficult and always has been throughout much of American history. The political, physical and emotional scars of radicals/progressives from Lincoln(and his Northeastern Republicans), through TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ to Clinton bear witness to that fact. Conservative governance tends to be easier than progressive governance because conservative rule tends to involve the preservation of the status quo, a return to familiarity or an appeal to nostalgia. Progressive rule, on the otherhand, requires significant social change and thus requires a much heavier. That is why you keep hearing the Tea Party folks screaming about how they want their country back. It is nothing more than fear and loathing.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Borglum said he added Teddy Roosevelt to Rushmore because of him fulfilling the American Manifest Destiny by defeating the Spanish in the Spanish-American war, for the Panama Canal, and because he created the national forest service which created the first 150 national parks which Black Hills was one.

However, many believe that Borglum included Roosevelt for the host of boosts that Roosevelt gave to Borglums career.

And lastly, even with HCR, Obama's first year plus of his presidency can only be deemed an abject failure by most objective people.

____________________

Bigmike:

williame123

Guess that struck a nerve.

Even the great ones swing and miss occasionally. Name one BO has hit out of the park. Cash for clunkers? That will get him a lot of attention in the history books, huh.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR