Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (Quinnipiac 2/2-8)

Topics: poll

Quinnipiac
2/2-8/10; 2,617 registered voters, 1.9% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Quinnipiac release)

National

Obama Job Approval
45% Approve, 46% Disapprove (chart)
Reps: 9 / 83 (chart)
Dems: 80 / 13 (chart)
Inds: 40 / 49 (chart)
Economy: 41 / 54 (chart)
Health Care: 35 / 58 (chart)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Dems in Congress: 28 / 63
Reps in Congress: 28 / 61

State of the Country
26% Satisfied, 73% Dissatisfied (chart)

Which comes closer to your point of view: Democrats in Congress are not considering Republican points of view in pushing legislation or Repubilcans in Congress are misusing the filibuster to block legislation?
46% Democrats pushing legislation, 37% Republicans misusing filibuster

From what you've heard or read, do you mostly approve or mostly disapprove of the proposed changes to the health care system under consideration in Congress?
35% Mostly Approve, 54% Mostly Disapprove (chart)

 

Comments
CUWriter:

So much for the idea that the GOP is being too obstructionist. That line isn't going to sell because while the public wants both sides to actually do something on these issues (as evidenced by the equally bad approval ratings in Congress for the parties), the people simply don't like the Dem proposals.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well as a progressive I am disgusted every day with the way the senate and house has been this year. To have gotten as far as they did with health care, take two weeks vacation, and return and delay it again and than after Scott Brown won, they wanted him to be seated. Harry Reid is a disgrace to the party and I am annoyed that bi-partisanship wans't taken off the table last fall on health care. America liked the public option, and the other ideas of reform. It was when Lieberman and the Blue dogs thought more about themselves and losing their big corporate donors, that is when the delay tactics began. It isn't the Democrats who who ultimately lose by ignorning health care, it is about 35 percent of the American people who will lose out because they are underinsured, uninsured or paying 3 times more than they should for private policies. I think Pelosi should be ashamed of herself for getting people's hopes up and telling people a week later that she doesn't have the votes. These promises to a progressive cut like a knife when there is so much talk and little action.

____________________

CUWriter:

For all the lefty talk that they are disappointed in the president, it sure doesn't show in the approval ratings.

As for health care, the American people like some of the ideas in the bill but hate the final price tag, don't trust that it will cut deficits and think it's too much in general. Sweeping change is not for our republic. In fact, since the Constitution was ratified, the biggest sweeping changes we've seen have come in the form of amendments and several of those took a war to pass.

Obama campaigned on sweeping change, something he should have known is impossible in a system designed to prevent such changes. But then, he's not a historian of the American political system; or he is but figured he was somehow different and immune to it. Our republic was created for incrementalism no matter how you slice it. People would be up in arms if the GOP proposed to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, even though they agree that there are solvency issues there. That's why Bush's social security plan failed; it was too much too soon and a little delay in Washington led to a groundswell with the public. Same deal for this health care proposal.

Had Obama proposed the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, half of which would go to the deficit and half to a catastrophic coverage plan for those without insurance coupled with say a national exchange he would have passed it with 75 votes in the Senate. It wouldn't even need tort reform. And then there you go; everyone would have some kind of insurance, the deficits would decline and medical bankruptcies would be slashed. Furthermore, Obama would have a ton of momentum to do cap and trade and a new jobs bill and perhaps even held on to his big majorities in both chambers. That would allow him to come back in 2011 to tweak the health care bill.

For all the "long view" he has when it comes to political campaigns, he doesn't have it when it comes to policy.

____________________

Field Marshal:

CU, he doesn't have a lot of things when it comes to policy and leadership.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Had Obama proposed the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, half of which would go to the deficit and half to a catastrophic coverage plan for those without insurance coupled with say a national exchange he would have passed it with 75 votes in the Senate. "

That would have been better than the nothing we're going to get. No one is going to touch health care again for 8-15 years, with potentially disastrous results for medicare/medicaid's solvency and health care inflation.

Hindsight is 20/20 and somehow I doubt it would have been that easy. Cloture would still have been difficult. There were only handful of republicans willing to give health care a 2nd look and such an unambitious plan would have turned off a number of democrats. There are quite a few states that have better health care plans than the kind you describe.

____________________



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