• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Public Option has Majority Support!

A

Anonymous

Guest
What a "socialistic" move-- actually doing what the majority has asked for and wants :wink:

Public option gains support
CLEAR MAJORITY NOW BACKS PLAN


By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 20, 2009

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public.

Americans remain sharply divided about the overall packages moving closer to votes in Congress and President Obama's leadership on the issue, reflecting the partisan battle that has raged for months over the administration's top legislative priority. But sizable majorities back two key and controversial provisions: both the so-called public option and a new mandate that would require all Americans to carry health insurance.
====================
On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)

If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56 percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation.

Fifty-six percent of those polled back a provision mandating that all Americans buy insurance, either through their employers or on their own or through Medicare or Medicaid. That number rises to 71 percent if the government were to provide subsidies for many lower-income Americans to help them buy coverage. With those qualifiers, a majority of Republicans say they support the mandate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
the new WaPo/ABC poll had big problems in its sampling came from question 38 of the raw data released by ABC last night, the generic Congressional ballot.

The WaPo/ABC survey has Democrats winning that matchup by twelve points, 51%/39%.

The sampling comprises 33% Democrats, as opposed to only 20% Republicans. That thirteen-point spread is two points larger than their September polling, at 32%/21%. More tellingly, it’s significantly larger than their Election Day sample, which included 35% Democrats to 26% Republicans for a gap of nine points, about a third smaller than the gap in this poll. Of course, that’s when they were more concerned about accuracy over political points of view.

Remember when I wrote that poll watchers need to remember the recent Gallup poll on party affiliation? Gallup polled 5,000 adults and found that the gap between Democrats and Republicans had closed to the smallest margin since 2005, six points, and had been reduced more than half since the beginning of the year. For the WaPo/ABC poll, though, their sample gap has increased almost 50% during that time.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hey ot 3.75 million pink slips is a pretty good public opinion poll. Especially when 3.75 million people pay 30 bucks a pop to send this message to all congress men and senators.

They have been served a real opinion of the consequences if they vote for it.

This poll is not tainted or biased or a bunch of liberal hype. Its American men and women taking action.

It would serve you well to wake up on behalf of your family before they throw you under the bus like they do all of those they need no more. :lol:

One more thing Oldtimer your posts are not worth a flip since you admitted your goal was all about stirring up crap here on ranchers and running people off.
 

Buckeye

Well-known member
The WaPo/ABC poll does seem rather problematic.

In question 6, “Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?”, only 45% said they approved, while 48% said they disapproved.

The public-option question gets asked in this manner:

8. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?

I’d call that more than a little biased. The “compete with private insurance” is a political claim by ObamaCare advocates. The private insurance industry competes within itself, just as all markets do. The government plan would not compete, but would undercut prices while getting subsidized on losses, while the same government imposes “fees” and new taxes on insurers. It’s no more “competition” than it would be to have Wal-Mart run the retail business and assess fees on its “competitors” for the privilege of existence.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jigs said:
a majority of fat retired law men now taking bribes possibly, but NOT the majority of working America.

I'm so glad (actually sad :( ) to see this "new" Republicanism (and ranchers.net) tactic of namecalling and attacking the messenger- and wish for the country to fail-- instead of debating the issue- hasn't changed a bit...
Jigs- you make it much easier to support those folks doing their job in Congress that people asked them to do- be they (R) or (D)- that don't run to the extremist hate mode :wink: :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Buckeye said:
The WaPo/ABC poll does seem rather problematic.

In question 6, “Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?”, only 45% said they approved, while 48% said they disapproved.

The public-option question gets asked in this manner:

8. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?

I’d call that more than a little biased. The “compete with private insurance” is a political claim by ObamaCare advocates. The private insurance industry competes within itself, just as all markets do. The government plan would not compete, but would undercut prices while getting subsidized on losses, while the same government imposes “fees” and new taxes on insurers. It’s no more “competition” than it would be to have Wal-Mart run the retail business and assess fees on its “competitors” for the privilege of existence.

Buckeye if you watch oldtimer will never address a answer like yours or mine that has substance. He is more like a rabbit hit it and run. He only shows up for a quick y. Kind of a self gratification post.

Then of course lets not overlook his attack on jigs for being truthful with him.

OT you are biased crazy and pathetic to fess up to being disruptive and then come back with the same old scheme. Looks to me like you didn't get enough redemption. Kind o fa cool hand Luke guy you are. IM SHAKIN IT BOSS Im shakin it. Now that I can believe!

One more thing OT since when is posting a tainted poll like you do anything near debate. It's the capital of stupidity plain and simple. If stupidity was music you would show up as a brass band.

OT you call it what you wish. I will call it exposing a flake like you for what you really are. To quote you once again. YOU ADMITTED TO BEING DISRUPTIVE NAME CALLING AND TO RUNNING PEOPLE OFF. Maybe just maybe you should hold yourself as accountable or up to the same standard as those you judge. If you were to do this there might be a real change in your ways. Pathetic is another way of seeing your actions.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Pig Farmer said:
Buckeye said:
The WaPo/ABC poll does seem rather problematic.

In question 6, “Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?”, only 45% said they approved, while 48% said they disapproved.

The public-option question gets asked in this manner:

8. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?

I’d call that more than a little biased. The “compete with private insurance” is a political claim by ObamaCare advocates. The private insurance industry competes within itself, just as all markets do. The government plan would not compete, but would undercut prices while getting subsidized on losses, while the same government imposes “fees” and new taxes on insurers. It’s no more “competition” than it would be to have Wal-Mart run the retail business and assess fees on its “competitors” for the privilege of existence.

Buckeye if you watch oldtimer will never address a answer like yours or mine that has substance. He is more like a rabbit hit it and run. He only shows up for a quick y. Kind of a self gratification post.

Then of course lets not overlook his attack on jigs for being truthful with him.

OT you are biased crazy and pathetic to fess up to being disruptive and then come back with the same old scheme. Looks to me like you didn't get enough redemption. Kind o fa cool hand Luke guy you are. IM SHAKIN IT BOSS Im shakin it. Now that I can believe!

One more thing OT since when is posting a tainted poll like you do anything near debate. It's the capital of stupidity plain and simple. If stupidity was music you would show up as a brass band.

OT you call it what you wish. I will call it exposing a flake like you for what you really are. To quote you once again. YOU ADMITTED TO BEING DISRUPTIVE NAME CALLING AND TO RUNNING PEOPLE OFF. Maybe just maybe you should hold yourself as accountable or up to the same standard as those you judge. If you were to do this there might be a real change in your ways. Pathetic is another way of seeing your actions.


"He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." - Paul Keating
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
jigs said:
a majority of fat retired law men now taking bribes possibly, but NOT the majority of working America.

I'm so glad (actually sad :( ) to see this "new" Republicanism (and ranchers.net) tactic of namecalling and attacking the messenger- and wish for the country to fail-- instead of debating the issue- hasn't changed a bit...
Jigs- you make it much easier to support those folks doing their job in Congress that people asked them to do- be they (R) or (D)- that don't run to the extremist hate mode :wink: :D

Looks like you are the one who's afraid to debate any issues, AT.

These imbeciles that you and your ilk voted into orifice WANT the country to fail, but your blind faith and loyalty to the Usurper and his socialst agenda does not allow you the ability to see the forest for the trees.

The "hate mode", as you call it, isn't hate, it's just regular everyday folks who have their guts plumb full of the Usurper, his cronies, and thug style Chicago politics. There is gonna be a "change", and a pretty damn big one, in about 54 weeks. Count on it, that is, if you are still alive.
 

jigs

Well-known member
my point Revrund Oldtimer, is that you are in a very bad place, you look only for the facts you want to see, you are blind to what is really going on. I used a smear tactic to point out the obvious because your with your liberal ignorance, I thought that is the only way you could understand it.

you never post an honest fact. you cut and run like a true liberal. to be quite honest, it is the people like you who will stand by blindly as thiscommie regime try to kill America.


and you call yourself a law man.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Fifty-six percent of those polled back a provision mandating that all Americans buy insurance"

That translates into 56 percent of people that don't respect the Constitution.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
jigs said:
a majority of fat retired law men now taking bribes possibly, but NOT the majority of working America.

I'm so glad (actually sad :( ) to see this "new" Republicanism (and ranchers.net) tactic of namecalling and attacking the messenger- and wish for the country to fail-- instead of debating the issue- hasn't changed a bit...
Jigs- you make it much easier to support those folks doing their job in Congress that people asked them to do- be they (R) or (D)- that don't run to the extremist hate mode :wink: :D


Took a page from the liberal text book oldtimer, Alice Nonothing ,Kolo, Reader2, yourself, all are famous for doing just that!!! NAME CALLING AND ATTAACK THE MESSENGER. Guess that doesn't count though huh

:wink: :wink:

EH?
 

Buckeye

Well-known member
Pig Farmer said:
Buckeye said:
The WaPo/ABC poll does seem rather problematic.

In question 6, “Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?”, only 45% said they approved, while 48% said they disapproved.

The public-option question gets asked in this manner:

8. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?

I’d call that more than a little biased. The “compete with private insurance” is a political claim by ObamaCare advocates. The private insurance industry competes within itself, just as all markets do. The government plan would not compete, but would undercut prices while getting subsidized on losses, while the same government imposes “fees” and new taxes on insurers. It’s no more “competition” than it would be to have Wal-Mart run the retail business and assess fees on its “competitors” for the privilege of existence.

Buckeye if you watch oldtimer will never address a answer like yours or mine that has substance. He is more like a rabbit hit it and run. He only shows up for a quick y. Kind of a self gratification post.
That's too bad. This being a discussion forum, I was hoping for some discussion.

Polls are very interesting things, they get thrown around quite a bit these days. I do it all the time. What's surprising is how little some people seem to know about the methodology used in some of the polls they share. I realize that the main criteria is usually that the poll supports your position, I'm guilty of that. But... if you expect a poll to REALLY support your position to the point where it helps you convince others that your position is valid and has the support of your fellow citizens... well, it really helps if the poll you reference isn't a sham.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
(CNSNews.com) – Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance--as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do.

Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that “nobody questions” Congress’ authority for such an action.
 

Mike

Well-known member
What a "socialistic" move-- actually doing what the majority has asked for and wants
I know that you were being sarcastic with your above statement but in actuality it's the truth. (A big change for you....no doubt)

Socialism IS when the majority or masses choose a new system of gov't assisted welfare, such as this new sham called Health Care Reform.

An example of allowing the majority would be: What if the majority chose to give everyone a $Million$ bucks out of the Treasury coffers? No doubt that the low income under-acheiving majority would be for it.

Would it be proper for the politicians in D.C. to pass it? Hell no it wouldn't.
But it would still pass by a large majority according to the public.
 
Top