Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

WA: 50% Rossi (R), 47% Murray (D) (Rasmussen 8/31)

Topics: poll , Washington

Rasmussen
8/31/10; 750 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Washington

2010 Senate
50% Rossi (R), 47% Murray (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Dino Rossi: 54 / 44
Patty Murray: 50 / 49

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 48 / 50
Gov. Gregoire: 42 / 54

 

Comments
Dave:

48-46 without leaners.

____________________

Paleo:

3% undecided? Don't think so.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Definitely a solid tossup.

From PPP on yesterdays OH polling:

Another Look at the Midwest-
I think this fact sums up how much trouble Democrats are in for in the Midwest this year: Ted Strickland's 34/52 approval rating on the Ohio poll we put out today makes him...the most popular Democratic Governor in a Big Ten State!

The other 5 Democrats running their states in the region all have approval numbers in the 20s. Ed Rendell's numbers are the worst at 27/63 (-36), followed by Jennifer Granholm at 29/61 (-32), Jim Doyle at 28/59 (-31), Pat Quinn at 23/53 (-30), and Chet Culver at 28/56 (-28).

____________________

Fred:

@Paleo

look at the poll before making comments like that. Rasmussen includes leaners in this poll.

____________________

Cederico:

This one is gonna be very close. I think it comes down to DEM turnout...if its anemic then Rossi slips by. If Murray can get DEM leaning voters excited enough to return their ballots she probably narrowly wins.

____________________

Paleo:

"look at the poll before making comments like that. Rasmussen includes leaners in this poll."

I'm aware it includes leaners. Even with leaners, 3% undecided is too low at this stage.

____________________

Paleo:

"I think this fact sums up how much trouble Democrats are in for in the Midwest this year"

Economic hard times are particularly bad news for midwest governors. The same thing happened in '82, when Democrats won Ohio and Michigan, and nearly beat Jim Thompson, who was thought to be unbeatable, in Illinois.

____________________

Mogando669:

if both WA and WI flips R, it'll be a very good chance of a 50-50 Senate split, which makes chasing Lieberman and Ben Nelson a very fun game.

kinda interesting but sad that Dems practically gave all UP their '08 gains within 2 years, and revert back to how it looked like in '06 (slim majorities in both sides, but guaranteed gridlock)

____________________

StatyPolly:

Low undecideds in all of Ras polls could be part of his Likely Voter screen. If you don't know, you ain't likely.

Just a guess, but it makes sense.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Mogando,

A radical, extreme far-left agenda will do that to a party. The dems need to get back to nominating moderate centrist candidates for both statewide and for president.

When Time magazine is running articles on how Obama has become unpopular, then you know you're in trouble.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100902/us_time/08599201562900

____________________

Paleo:

"A radical, extreme far-left agenda will do that to a party."

If only it was. Yes, entrenching the private health insurance system is radical and extreme far-left.

"The dems need to get back to nominating moderate centrist candidates for both statewide and for president."

I guess getting 53% of the vote, which is more than Bush ever got, was a real electoral failure.

____________________

StatyPolly:

FM, watch Matthews goof on BOBO's prompter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKknodesRK0

"It's like an eye test". Made me lol.

____________________

Fred:

Paleo,

how is it too low? Murray is an incumbant, and Rossi has run in a statewide election multiple times. People know both of these candidates very well, at least enough to have an opinion of them. Remember, this is also a likely voter model. People who are likely to vote generally are those who are up to date on the candidates, following this kinda stuff.

____________________

melvin:

The GOP might win a few seats this November,but come 2012 the GOP is going to get killed,because you can bet the the Obama supporters are going to come out in full force..I predict the GOP is going to win 26 seats,and 6 Senate seats,but come 2012 the GOP is probably going to lose most of those seats right back,because the Minorities do vote in big numbers in a Presidential year...Gallup came out with a poll yesterday showing the GOP is a predominantly White party by a landslide,Gallup also showed how the GOP is losing Minorities at an unbelievable rate....Gallup is predicting the GOP is only going to get 16% of the Minority vote in 2012,which means the Republican nominee has to get 66% of the White vote to reach 50% of the total vote..The lastime a Republican got 16% of the Minority vote was way back in 1980,but at that time the Minority vote was only 9% of the total vote,but in 2012 the Minority vote is going to be 28%. How can the GOP compete after 2012 with those kind of numbers? The right-wing base of the Republican party wont let the GOP go out to recruit Minority voters because they're racist...Can we say goodbye to the Republican party after 2012.

____________________

Paleo:

"how is it too low?"

3% is too low. It's true that both these candidates are well known, and this is a "likely" voter screen. Even so, I have a hard time believing that in this day and age with so many independents, that only 3 out of 100 are undecided two months out. I guess 6% would be my cutoff in this race, at this point.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I guess getting 53% of the vote, which is more than Bush ever got, was a real electoral failure.

A slight majority of the country favored changing the political ideology in 2008 that had exists essentially since 1980, given the economic calamity. Do you think that means he's a centrist?

The Dems squandered their lead on the main issues going from a 39 point advantage on health care to a 1 point advantage. On the economy, they went from a 16 point advantage to an 11 point disadvantage. And on ethics, a big issue in 2006 and 2008, they went from a 23 point advantage to a 3 point disadvantage. Not to mention that just under half of the country has said that Obama's policies are "extreme".

Can you honestly say with a straight face that Pelosi and Obama represent anything but a far-left ideology? If so, then you would be in a the tiny minority that believes so, which is fine. You'd be wrong, but you're entitled to your misguided opinion.

____________________

Rasmussen's record in WA has consistently underpolled Democratic candidates. If you read his story on this poll, he points that out. He missed the mark in 2008 by a significant margin in both the Gregoire/Rossi race and the presidential margin.

Here's the key paragraph:

"In Washington, Rasmussen Reports polled on two races during the 2008 campaign. In the race for president, Rasmussen polling showed Obama leading 54% to 43% and Obama won 57% to 40%. In the 2008 Washington governor's race, final Rasmussen Reports polling showed Gregoire leading Rossi 50% to 48%, and Gregoire won 53% to 47%."

He called Obama by +11 and he won by +17 and Gregoire by +2 and she won by +6.

Murray is much better liked in the state than Gregoire and will win this race by at least +6, probably more.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Larry Sabato's new forcast:

In summary: Republicans are projected to pick up 47 seats in the House, 8-9 seats in the Senate and 8 governorships.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/09/02/new_forecast_sees_big_republican_wave.html

____________________

Paleo:

"Can you honestly say with a straight face that Pelosi and Obama represent anything but a far-left ideology? If so, then you would be in a the tiny minority that believes so, which is fine. You'd be wrong, but you're entitled to your misguided opinion."

If you're far right on the spectrum, of course it would seem far-left. But if you look at it objectively, in light of U.S. history and the political spectrum in western democracies, describing it as far-left is nothing short of laughable. LBJ, and especially FDR, were much further left than Obama has been. He dropped the one good feature of HIR, the public option. The plan that was passed was more conservative than the one G.H.W. Bush proposed in 1992.

____________________

Xenobion:

Rasmussen has gotten Washington wrong since I've been looking at this website. They thought it was a tossup state for McCain leaning Obama but Obama still managed to win the state handily.

The things is there are going to be few Republican gains in the state in Nov. The open district is probably going to be won by Heck a dem and Riechart will probably have a good battle in district 5 but will most likely hold his seat.

Major gains will not happen until the next Governor's race where a Republican will probably win. Rob Mckenna.

____________________

Field Marshal:

He dropped the one good feature of HIR, the public option.

If Obama had a choice, do you think he would have dropped it?

It was only dropped to get it passed and even Obama has said this bill was just a stepping stone. Its meant to be a foundation for the lurch towards single-payer, which is an extreme far-left want.

____________________

Paleo:

How can it be a move towards single-payer when there's no public component? To the contrary, it further entrenches the private health insurance industry, the real death panels. If anything, the legislation makes it more difficult to move to single payer.

It was a lousy bill that shouldn't have been passed. Obama dropped the public option because, as with everything else, he'd rather capitulate than fight.

____________________

Bukama:

@Melvin,

In my House District 7 of Colorado, Ed Permutter (D) is being challenged by Ryan Frazier, an African American. I don't know how well he is doing (haven't seen any polls on our district), but the Republican Party did a great job recruiting Frazier - he's a solid conservative.

It's true, however, that I had no idea he was black until after he won the primary. That's because no one made a big deal out of it - all we heard about in radio ads and emails (I don't watch commercial TV much and he may not have bought TV time) were his ideas and policy preferences. His race is irrelevant.

District 7 was once competitive. Before Perlmutter, Bob Beauprez held the seat for the Republicans. I wish he had stayed there and solidified teh new district (created after the last redistricting). Unfortunately, with a Dem Governor likely, District 7 will probably be mutilated to make it solid Democrat in the future.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I think its a move toward single-payer since the bill gives more power to the government; both in the form of increased people on the government rolls and in the form of increased regulation of private insurers.

In my opinion, the moves only puts private insurance onto shakier ground by forcing them to increase rates FASTER because of lower reimbursements from the government. This will increase the clamor by people who aren't aware of the connection (which i would say are most) to wanting some other option. Then comes the public option. However, Obama didn't think he would lose the house or Senate.

I would agree its a lousy bill that shouldn't have been passed and i've been saying for two years now that Obama is no leader, hence his capitulation.

And remember with the whole death panel nonsense, even if you are denied coverage by a private insurer for some life-saving operation, you WILL get the operation. Under single-payer/government run, you will not. Which would you rather have?

____________________

Fred:

@paleo
even if people are independents, they still have their beliefs, and when you have a guy on the right like rossi, and a murray on the left, one is more likely to fit the political ideas of that person. Either way, rasmussen is a reliable pollster, and all polls have shown this will be a close race, so right now, there's no reason to believe this isn't a tossup

@melvin
Democrats would LOVE if they only lose 26 seats. Right now, as things stand, they would lose 40-50.

____________________

MikeyA:

Dems have said they lost "94 because Hilarycare failed. Are they going to say the losses this year(which will be worse) are because they didn't pass a public option?

Does melvin talk about anything BUT race?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I've noticed that Labor day in the past has been a bad time of year for Democrats the past few years. Bush took the 10 point lead after labor day in the convention in 2004, and I remember Oregon, Maine, and even Hawaii Bush had slight leads for a week or so. He didn't win any of those states. In 2008, it seemed like Mccain was back in the race. Of course summers are also times when congress isn't in session so the GOP and their subordinates will be on the attack a lot. Once summer is over and people are back to their routines, a lot changes.

I don't think Rossi will win this race because Washington has early voting I think, higher turnout than other states like Ohio and PA, and the western part of the State tends to determine who wins in that state.

____________________

tjampel:

And remember with the whole death panel nonsense, even if you are denied coverage by a private insurer for some life-saving operation, you WILL get the operation. Under single-payer/government run, you will not. Which would you rather have?

This is untrue; why did you make this crap up? It's an insult to those who've actually died because they were dropped by insurance companies when the cost of their care (for a chronic degenerative condition) became too high. These people need dialysis, bypass operations, chemo, radiation therapy etc; the "Dick Cheney"pump, etc. No way they get any of those goodies through the ER. They have to wait until they've lost their home, their life savings, etc. and then....maybe they will get them through Medicaid; by then they'll be dead.

There's a real problem with middle class insureds getting dropped. About 40% of those with Wellpoint in CA who had annual medical costs over 100k were dropped in...I think 2008.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

It is pretty scary that Sarah Palin has recruited countless morons who have bought into a pathological lie about the death panels. End of life counseling was brought up by Senator Isaakson, a very conservative Republican.

____________________

@Fred: You said "all polls have shown this will be a close race..."

Actually, other than this post primary poll by Rasmussen, I don't recall seeing any other public polls done after the August 17 voting. I would point out, that even if there were other polling, more than 1,400,000 Washingtonians actually voted on August 17 and given a choice between Patty Murray and Dino Rossi, Murray won by more than 13 points -- 46-33!

Remember, the WA primary is a "top 2" election, where all candidates, regardless of party, compete against each other. Some would say that the man coming in third in that election, Clint Didier, a teabagger, should represent Rossi votes, but he hasn't endorsed Rossi and many of the teabaggers that like Didier, dislike Rossi, calling him "Dino the RINO."

So where will Rossi make up his 13-point deficit? If you're not up on WA voting, by the way, that turnout was more than 40% statewide and the forecast for November is only for about a 55% turnout. WA is a vote by mail state (except for one County), so people tend to vote very early there, giving Rossi only a few weeks to campaign on why, after already losing 2 statewide elections to a candidate less well liked than Patty Murray, they should trust him with a Senate seat.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"The Dems squandered their lead on the main issues going from a 39 point advantage on health care to a 1 point advantage."

The dems never had approval on health care higher than the low 50s. Disapproval was only in the 20s at the outset, but there was never consensus on the issue.

If you look at it that way, approval has only gone from the low 50s to low 40s.

Right here:
/polls/us/healthplan.html

The polls from early 09 show HCR approval at it's highest 51%. It moved down once congress started actually working on it. When Obama gave his speech on it in September 09 and actually made full-throated justifications for health reform, it moved back up to about 51/45. Moved down again quickly once congress started messing with it.

The legislative process, like complicated processes at any workplace, are not very pretty. I think practically ANY legislation that gets the level of scrutiny HCR did would be unpopular with the public just because of the way the system works. Republican or democrat legislation, it doesn't matter.

What amazes me with the health care issue is that, unlike most issues, personal vignettes seem to make no difference. Usually putting faces to the issue move people. With health care people are just cynical about it, some of the getting really ugly, ie: the kid from Washington State whose mother died.

Unless you've had a chronic disease or are clise to someone who has, I think it's hard to appreciate why some people are FOR health reform. Being sick is bad enough. But being sick and going bankrupt at the same time is like torture. A complete loss of dignity. Even the most prepared person could be subject to it, especially in states like TX where insurers can selective refuse to treat certain conditions.

I hate when conservatives try to propose purely market-based solutions. Health care is not a rational market, nor should it be. Health care should be viewed as a public service, or at least there should be a distinction between elective health care and life-preserving care. Sick people don't make rational decisions. When you're fearful of death or pain you make rash decisions. Unless you've had a health crisis you don't understand.

You should not have to go bankrupt to save your life. In any other sector that would be called extortion. For some reason we tolerate it in health care.

I don't understand how the pro-life and anti-health care positions can be reconciled without major rationalization. If you believe in the sanctity and dignity of life you should be for providing health care to people who need it. To me it's the ultimate hypocrisy to be pro-life but pro-market when it comes to health care. An abortion costs $500. A birth costs minimum $2000 and very easily $5 to $10,000, not to mention the tens of thousands that child will cost until he/she turns 18. The rational market solution is to reduce the number of babies, the most efficient way would be celibacy, followed by abortion.

If you put a price on health you put a price on life. I don't see how people that consider new life precious do not consider existing life just as important.

____________________

Field Marshal:

This is untrue; why did you make this crap up? It's an insult to those who've actually died because they were dropped by insurance companies when the cost of their care (for a chronic degenerative condition) became too high.

Untrue. First off, even most chronic degenerative diseases are still covered by either the hospital or the government if you do not have insurance. Second, the likelihood of insurance not paying for any of those things is so slim that its almost not worth mentioning.

Second, its the people who don't have insurance in the first place that is the problem not private insurance not paying. Heck, Medicare denied more claims last year than private insurance. Its those people who fall through the cracks; the one's who have some decent sized assets but not insurance for a host of reason. Again, luckily, these incidents are very rare. More people filed for bankruptcy in Canada than in the US over the last 5 years.

Farleft,

Don't even get me started with how scary it is how many moronic things you believe in and state for us everyday. Hopefully, there aren't many more of you around but i'm not holding my breathe.

____________________

Field Marshal:

You should not have to go bankrupt to save your life. In any other sector that would be called extortion. For some reason we tolerate it in health care.

I would agree. That's why people should plan ahead and at least purchase catastrophic health insurance. A family of four can buy a plan for coverage that kicks in at $50,000 for $50 a month WITH pre-existing conditions and $20 without. That's less than their cable or cell phone bill. Problem is that people would rather have cable or a cell phone than health coverage.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I don't understand how the pro-life and anti-health care positions can be reconciled without major rationalization.

Who is anti-health care?

To me it's the ultimate hypocrisy to be pro-life but pro-market when it comes to health care. An abortion costs $500. A birth costs minimum $2000 and very easily $5 to $10,000, not to mention the tens of thousands that child will cost until he/she turns 18. The rational market solution is to reduce the number of babies, the most efficient way would be celibacy, followed by abortion.

That's a ridiculous statement- that we should kill unborn babies since its cheaper. What a truly horrific thing to write and i feel extremely sorry for you that you would actually think such a thing.

I mean, should we then eliminate everyone over 80 since they are the bulk of our health care costs? How about mentally challenged and other deformed children that are costly to the system? Should they be destroyed as well?

Its sad that the level of discourse in the debate by liberals is to the point were they are encouraging the destruction of a life in order to save money. Truly sad.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

Can anybody answer this for me: When the Democrats have massive generic ballot leads like in 2006, the can only gain 26. When the Republicans have massive generic ballot leads like they do now, they're projected to gain 47. Why does it take two excellent cycles for Democrats to gain what Republicans gain in one excellent cycle. Please dont respond with partisan bullshit. Im actually curious about this. Thanx! The same thing happened in the 1990s. The Republicans won 54 seats in one cycles. Why cant Democrats do that when they have good cycles. Is it regional in nature, or does it have to do with Democrats not being able to win R districts in their good years when Republicans can do so to the Democrats like in 1994 and presumably now

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@Field Marshall:
You are an idiot. Name one other developed country that does haelth care the way we do. Name one developed country where there is a debate going on where a lot of people say "Let's change our health care system to be like america"s"
The private sector is not capable of providing health care for all at a reasonable price because they are greedy, and this is acceptable to you.
Just like most of those on the right you think health care is a welfare program for people not deserving of it, whereas tax cuts for the well-off are fine.
Your description of a catostrophic health care plan is not correct. Deductables are often 5,000-10,000 dollars and then you have to pay 40% of the bill. How is this helpful to people who need health care?

____________________

Paleo:

The Dems actually gained 30 seats in '06, I believe 21 in '08 and three or four others in special elections. In '06, they won the generic by 8. Why not more? Redistricting is one factor. Distribution of the vote is another.

Also, don't forget that in both '94 and this year, the Republicans are starting from a much lower base than the Democrats did in '06. Under 180 seats in both instances. While the Democrats were at 203 in '06.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"that we should kill unborn babies since its cheaper."

It is a sad thought isn't it? But how else do you reduce costs? Obviously the morality is left out. Being moral costs money.

I believe in a whole life policy. I don't want abortions to happen. I also want that baby to receive the health care and education he/she needs to be a healthy, productive citizen, and it should be a societal responsibility to provide that. It is to some extent, although the subsidized minimum levels of health care and education are barely better than poverty, at least by our own standards.

"A family of four can buy a plan for coverage that kicks in at $50,000 for $50 a month"

I don't know about you, but most families don't have $50K laying around. A $50K debt would not be very easy to handle.

I have a catastrophic plan, and all it does is give me about 1 year before bankruptcy sets in. I wouldn't be able to afford the out of pocket limit for more than one year. At that point, I'd default on my car, not be able to make rent, etc... Those types of plans have limited utility.

____________________

@Anthony Gonzalez:

You raise a very good question and I think you're right. I believe there are multiple reasons for what you say. First, there are more registered Dems in the US than registered Republicans to begin with, so on a baseline statistical basis, you might always expect a Democratic edge in the generic ballot, leaving that edge as a "status quo" basis.

Second, there are far more small states, with just 1 congressional seat, that are Republican than Democratic, just making those seats, with higher population bases, very difficult for Dems to win, no matter what edge they have. Also, there are dramatically more "minority" seats in big cities, that go Democratic by 4, 5, 6-1 majorities than there are corresponding Republican seats with those kind of majorities. So that also adds to the generic ballot not being as significant in swing districts when Dems show an edge. Also, in the last couple of post-Census redistrictings, more states that gained seats had pro-Republican gerrymanderings than had pro-Democratic gerrymanderings. When Tom DeLay engineered that mid-stream Texas redistricting, for example, it cost the Democrats about six seats alone.

Finally, I'm not sure the pundits are right this time around when they "automatically" give the GOP +40 seats or so for a generic ballot margin of 4-7 points. I've been calling for pollsters to do generic ballot tests on a regional basis, which I think might be much more logical to gauge national Congressional sentiment for seat changes.

The Dems have lost massive ground in the South, while the Republicans have lost massive ground in the Northeast in the past decade or so. What we really need to see is polling that's done regionally on the generic ballot issue. To date, I've only seen one such poll and it showed the GOP with a 30 point lead in the South, but Dems winning in all three other sectors of the country.

But you do raise a very good questions that deserves answers from experts, as opposed to just another poster like myself.

____________________

Paleo:

"What we really need to see is polling that's done regionally on the generic ballot issue."

I'd like to see that as well.

____________________

Louis:

Field Marshall,
I basically consider both Obama and pelosi as left leaning cenerists and I don't mean that as a compliment. My main problem with the Democrats is that they have been much too timid in their programs.
I guess that makas me some kind of Radical nut cake. So be it.

____________________

Paleo:

"My main problem with the Democrats is that they have been much too timid in their programs.
I guess that makas me some kind of Radical nut cake. So be it."

No, it just makes you a solid progressive. In the tradition of FDR, etc. That used to be the norm until the party became infected by DLC "New" Democrats with their pro-corporate agenda.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

The problem with Obama is that he ran as the next FDR and is governing like Hoover. He should fire every one of his advisors for how theyve handled his image. His campaign in 2008 was flawless yet they cant now come out and say that Obama is a christian. He lets these things fester and doesnt tackle it head on. More importantly, he jammed down Healthcare forcing many vulnerable Dems to vote aye and now he's repaying them by doing nothing while the economy's collapsing again. I may sound like a radical neo-con right now but im actually super liberal. How did Obama manage to make the Democrats the party of big business? Bailouts, a weak regulatory bill, pandering to Wall Street. The Democrats should be skyhigh with the hatred of wall street right now but Obama's done such a poor job in communicating himself that i frankly dont blame the people for voting against him. He's so timid about his agenda and lets himself get defined and beaten up. Clinton, FDR, Johnson would have personally gone to Congress and punched any Republican who talked shit in his face. I personally want to punish Obama in the polls but i dont want to do it by giving the R's the House. Pelosi has done a great job in my opinion. If the Democrats could only lose the Senate but keep the House then Obama would get the message without losing Pelosi to help him rebuild his brand. Call me a partisan or whatever but Obama's villifying liberalism like Bush did to conservatism. Hilary would have done much better. Please dont respond with some dumbass talking point about how Pelosi's a witch and Obama's the next antichrist :)

____________________

Field Marshal:

It is a sad thought isn't it? But how else do you reduce costs? Obviously the morality is left out. Being moral costs money.

So how do reconcile the the fact that you and other libies criticize republicans for wanting the poor to die without health insurance when you advocate killing unborn children to save money? Seeking savings through the rationing of care to the poor or elderly is no different that the rationing of care through abortion. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

I don't know about you, but most families don't have $50K laying around. A $50K debt would not be very easy to handle.

No, but just about every hospital and medical provider extends payment plans to pay off that debt. They simply do not say pay up or declare bankruptcy.

Alan,

You are an idiot.

Thank you. Coming from you, i take that as a compliment.

Name one developed country where there is a debate going on where a lot of people say "Let's change our health care system to be like america"s"

Name one developed country that says "let's change our health care system to look like Canada's, or Japan, or France."

The private sector is not capable of providing health care for all at a reasonable price because they are greedy, and this is acceptable to you.

Yes. Because the alternative is far worse.

Your description of a catostrophic health care plan is not correct. Deductables are often 5,000-10,000 dollars and then you have to pay 40% of the bill. How is this helpful to people who need health care?

Actually, very.

____________________

Paleo:

"Name one developed country that says "let's change our health care system to look like Canada's, or Japan, or France." "

Probabaly not, because they all are.

Cut out the middleman. The cost of health care will drop, and everyone will be covered. There's no reason for outside entities to make money off the doctor-patient relationship.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Probabaly not, because they all are.

They all are what?

Who is the middleman?

____________________

Paleo:

Like the countries you mentioned.

Private health insurers.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Actually, each country have a very different system. Switzerland probably has the closest system to ours. Japan second. Canada and Sweden are at the opposite end with complete government control. UK, Germany and France have hybrid systems with France moving more towards us over the last decade instituting more privatization.

I would agree on eliminating the middle man. Patients should pay doctors directly. Make it an actual market where patients see the cost of their care and doctors compete.

____________________

Colton:

Typically WA state numbers change little from the Primary result-where the Republicans bested the Democrats by an almost 50-48 margin. If Reichart in WA-8 can win big as he is expected too then combine that with WA-3 where Jamie Herrera is also expected to win large and that will be a telling sign for this Senate Race. If Rossi can rack up large numbers in Eastern WA, win hefty in WA-8 and WA-3 region as well as decrease Murray's lead and possibly carry my region of kitsap county then he has to at least be somewhat competitive in King County to win. He proved in 04 how to be competitive and win statewide, now he is in an even better position with the anti-incumbency/Democrat fervor here in WA state

____________________

nick283:

Eh, plenty of folks over here in the UK seem to prefer the US style of care because they will go to the states if they need a serious medical procedure and have the means to pay for it. They would rather not wait several months to get necessary surgery. Whether or not people in European countries want a system like ours is pretty irrelevant anyway.

Xenobion - how can you really think the Republicans are in danger of losing WA-3 or WA-8 (Reichert's seat). Republican share of the two party primary vote was between 55 and 60 percent in both. Sabato and RCP have WA-3 and WA-8 as lean Republican, and Jaime Herrera is up by 13 in the only public poll since the primary in WA-3. I bet Koster will come closer to winning in WA-2 than either Democrat will in WA-3 or WA-8.

____________________

Colton:

Heck I think Watkins will come closer to beating Inslee than either Democrat in WA-3 or WA-8

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"So how do reconcile the the fact that you and other libies criticize republicans for wanting the poor to die without health insurance when you advocate killing unborn children to save money? Seeking savings through the rationing of care to the poor or elderly is no different that the rationing of care through abortion."

They don't seem particularly concerned about providing the poor with health care, but...

That's not what I said. I said that's the rational market solution, the most efficient way to control costs. Clearly you are willing to intervene in the normal market system when it comes to health care in order to take care of the poor and elderly.

So you are agreeing with me to the extent that health care is not a rational market, nor should it be.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"plenty of folks over here in the UK seem to prefer the US style of care because they will go to the states if they need a serious medical procedure and have the means to pay for it"

OBVIOUSLY! If you have the money, you'll go anywhere to get health care. I know people who went to India to get treatment not approved here.

There are also tens of thousands of Americans per year that cross into Mexico to take advantage of the cheaper medical care. I guarantee you those people outnumber the Europeans paying thousands to fly to America for medical care.

____________________

nick283:

Aaron - I can't believe this debate with you about abortion has gone on so long without anyone bringing up the point, that the child who is born and raised to maturity will be able to work (in most cases) for most of their adult life.

That more than outweighs the costs of birth and caring for the child. If it didnt, our economy would never have grown from the beginning. If you really want to break human existence down to economic terms a child would be seen as a rational long-term investment... One that has worked out pretty well throughout the history of human existence.

____________________

nick283:

Haha, Aaron. I doubt that competes with the 10s of millions of immigrants who have come from mexico to the united states in the last few decades. People vote with their feet about what kind of country they want to live in and the United States does pretty well all in all.

____________________

nick283:

sorry, realize 10s of millions from mexico is slightly high. more like 10 million.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@fieldmarshall:
Wrong again, I ask you aquestion and you don't answer it because you can't about what other developed country wants our health care system.
You say the alternative to our system would be worse. You want to continue to make american business less competitive because of the increased costs of health care. How are we supposed to compete in a world economy by paying more for our health care system than other developed countries?
There are many different ways to get to universal healthcare, apparently you don't believe in it.
You are wonderful! (my compliment to you)
If you think that the catastrophic insurance policy I described is great, I suggest you try it.
However, I'm glad that you made it clear that you don't want americans to have health care.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Wrong again on what? LOL. Too funny. Debate skills you do not have Alan.

I ask you aquestion and you don't answer it because you can't about what other developed country wants our health care system.

And i asked you a question which you failed to answer again. I've never heard one country's leader say that they want to have another country's health care system in their own country. So you're question is as absurd as your debating skills.

You say the alternative to our system would be worse. You want to continue to make american business less competitive because of the increased costs of health care.

No, i don't. Again, the ol' liberal canard that if you don't like the way the democrats have attempted to complete universal health care, then you are against universal health care. Never said i was, i just think the way the Demies are doing it is going to backfire. And if you've seen you insurance premiums for next year yet, so far i've been vindicated.

On our competitiveness, we need to remove the employer-tied health care insurance system. If you're so for improving our competitiveness than i assume you're for the abolition of unions since they are the largest impediment to our competitiveness, followed by our corp tax rate.

If you think that the catastrophic insurance policy I described is great, I suggest you try it.

I have and its great. Thank you very much. If you think single-payer is so great, i suggest you move to Canada.

____________________

nick283:

The question about "what other country wants our healthcare system" is beyond idiotic. Individuals in different countries including ours would like to have another country's healthcare system. Alan's question is like asking, "what other country's healthcare system does America want?" Different people would give you different answers including no other country.

It's like what other developed country want's our version of free speech? No real good answer, but it doesnt mean there is something wrong with ours. Criticize the healthcare system if you want, but that question is ridiculous.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I did notice that Rasmussen has been off on Washington. This is going to be the new senate I'll make phone calls for. I think PA voters just don't get it.

Murray can still win this, with strong turnout, and putting Rossi in his place.
In Washington, Rasmussen Reports polled on two races during the 2008 campaign. In the race for president, Rasmussen polling showed Obama leading 54% to 43% and Obama won 57% to 40%. In the 2008 Washington governor's race, final Rasmussen Reports polling showed Gregoire leading Rossi 50% to 48%, and Gregoire won 53% to 47%.

In the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Rasmussen polling showed Maria Cantwell leading 54% to 42%, and she won 57% to 39%. In the 2004 presidential race,


____________________

@Colton: You must have blinders on in your Kitsap County neighborhood, because here in Eastern WA there is no such thing as any anti-incumbent mood. And there certainly is no love for Dino Rossi, who is called "Dino the RINO" by many of Clint Didier's supporters here.

If you look at the Aug. 17 results, Murray beat Rossi in Franklin County, tied him in Benton and won big in Spokane. She got over 35% in Eastern WA, because she is extremely well liked and well regarded around here. She is given total credit for Eastern Washington's economic boom due to her ability to get $6 billion in Federal funding for the Hanford cleanup.

Rossi needs to win the big population centers of the Tri-Cities and Spokane here in the East by nearly 3-1 to even be competitive statewide, and he'll be lucky to win around here by 60-40.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"- I can't believe this debate with you about abortion has gone on so long without anyone bringing up the point, that the child who is born and raised to maturity will be able to work (in most cases) for most of their adult life."

I think you focused too much on my hypothetical and not what I was saying about "whole life" vs. "pro-life."

Of course you are right, but if children are such a good investment, why are the populations of ALL the rich countries, including the whites in the U.S. (the rich demographic) producing at or below replacement level? It's because it takes a child about 30 years now to become highly productive in an advanced democracy like the U.S. And he/she will only accomplish that IF he/she receives the proper education. Otherwise, that child will be on some sort of assistance for most of his life. So while it's a good long-term investment, it's extremely expensive for the first 20-25 years or so. And since prime child-bearing years are the 20s before they've reached *economic* maturity, it's harder for people to have more than 1 or 2 kids once they become economically productive in their 30s.

2nd you have to ask yourself WHY abortions happen? In most cases the prospective mother is scared, mostly about caring for the child after birth. If she is young and single, she will require assistance, or else the child will end up just like her and the cycle continues.

In my opinion, if you are pro-life, you should be for subsidized health care for those babies (AND the mother) and for adequate educational benefits for them. That way they will become productive later in life. Deny them those things and they'll just repeat the mistakes of their parents. More education = better family planning choices. There is more than enough data to support that (a big reason teen pregnancies are down from the past two decades, especially among whites).

A lot of times people are pro-life and NOT for universal health care and for cutting education benefits. My favorite is cutting the dept. of education, which is the dept. that administers Pell grants/student loans, the very programs that help the most those people in the situation I described above.

____________________



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