TPMDC
Poll: Health Care Bill Could Hurt Dems -- And Not Passing It Would Be Worse
United States Capitol
Share
Send to a friend!
A new national survey from Public Policy Polling (D) finds that health care has put the Democrats in a tricky situation -- passing a bill with a public option doesn't offer a clear political benefit, but not passing anything would cause an even greater problem.
The Democrats lead on an initial generic Congressional ballot by 46%-38%. If they pass a health care with a public option, the gap becomes 46%-41%. If they don't pass a health care bill at all, though, it becomes a 40%-40% tie -- reminiscent of the loss in Democratic support in 1994, after they failed to pass a health care bill.
"Clearly Democrats need to pass a health care bill if they want to do well at the polls next year," said PPP president Dean Debnam, in the polling memo. "But they don't need to take an all or nothing approach. Allowing the status quo to remain rather than accepting a bill without a public option would be a poor decision politically."
The poll was conducted from November 13th to November 15th, before this past weekend's vote in the Senate to proceed with debate on the health care bill. The margin of error is ±3%.
Comments (69) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
mostman
November 23, 2009 12:34 PM
Hate to say it - but I think its time to drop the Public Option. This poll confirms what I was thinking on this - Health Reform good for Dems, but not with a Public Option.
I'm assuming the administration has similar poll numbers to this, which is why they are pushing for triggers.
Drop the Public Option and get the other 98 percent of the bill passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 23, 2009 12:38 PM in reply to mostman
Except all the other polls from more established pollsters show strong majority support for a public option. I realize PPP has become one of the favored pollsters of headline writers, but this is because their results often show crazy crap that turns out to be wildly wrong Remember their predicted Hoffman landslide in NY-23?
But I have to give them credit for finally finding a convoluted sequence of polling questions that can be interpreted as negative for the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 23, 2009 12:39 PM in reply to mostman
But it's the rest of the bill that sucks and will be bad for most of our citizens. What would be the point of passing that? Just to make sure some corporate Democrats don't get re-elected? What difference would that make to the average citizen? Zero!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 23, 2009 12:45 PM in reply to oleeb
The point is that it's not bad for most of our citizens. CBO estimates the vast majority of people will see a significant reduction in the growth of premiums (not a reversal but still a beneficial effect) while a huge chunk of the currently uninsured and underinsured will get free (via Medicaid) or mostly subsidized plans that offer more benefits than they can get now. There will be some people who will feel a crunch, notably self-employed people making somewhere in the range of $80,000-$100,000, but they're not "most of our citizens."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 12:49 PM in reply to Stroszek
a significant reduction in the growth of premiums
hey, it could've been worse is working so well now with unemployment,
I'm sure when the full electorate is affected by the rising cost of premiums, which the media will blast is due to the reform, everything will be shiny.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 23, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yes IndiePro, I believe actually helping people is more important than fretting about how the media will spin it. It's kind of disturbing to find out that this is a controversial viewpoint.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 12:58 PM in reply to Stroszek
haha. You don't care about helping people. You care about passing a bill to put a WIN in Obama's column, and you know it. I know it, as I've read your many posts here.
This bill is a giveaway to the industry, and you know it. Very little is won.
Many will find themselves with insurance and high deductibles and the insbility to use it.
In short, the same position many are in today, being outside healthcare, they'll be in after this reform is passed, but they will be forced into a new payment each month that will be a significant part of their income.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 12:59 PM in reply to Indie Pro
and it won't be spin, it'll be true, btw.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 23, 2009 1:07 PM in reply to Indie Pro
IndiePro, I have to credit you for becoming an even more obnoxious and predictable troll than Lalo, but I'm not really interested in entertaining your blog rage today. Have a nice one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 1:13 PM in reply to Stroszek
excellent. All you offer is obfustications, name calling, and lies. Cheerio!
go tell someone the stupak ammendment is no big deal, you're good at that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 23, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Obfusticate? That's a deliberate misrepresentication.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 2:25 PM in reply to Stroszek
I'm not really interested in entertaining your blog rage today.
add to that, you can't stick to what you say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 23, 2009 2:32 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Somebody needs to consult a dictionary before throwing out big words. . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 2:35 PM in reply to FreeRider
you don't even know what "to campaign" means.
You and lieberman share arguments, hilarious.
You guys are bullies without any thing to back it up.
Oh, typos. Now, you got me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 23, 2009 2:47 PM in reply to Indie Pro
1. This isn't about a typo. Regardless of how you spell it, you don't understand the meaning of obfuscate, you moron.
2. I know "campaign" doesn't mean putting up a white paper on your website. If it did, no politician would ever give speeches, run ads, meet voters, give interviews, have debates. They'd post their positions in papers on their web site and say "look how hard I'm campaigning. I update my site every day!" LOL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 2:49 PM in reply to FreeRider
hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
November 24, 2009 12:40 AM in reply to Indie Pro
never mind, Indie. FreepRider has now decided that if Obama campaigned on a public plan, but didn't call it a public option, then he didn't campaign on the public option.
I documented with newspaper quotes, a post at Media Matters, and an extensive and detailed description of the Public Option -- er, sorry, Public Plan -- and, well, you can see FreepRider's response.
Denial of reality to shame any loyal Bushie. But that's FreepRider for ya.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 23, 2009 1:50 PM in reply to Stroszek
But it is, in fact, bad for most of our citizens. It requires people to buy the same rotten health insurance the can't afford now with no price controls on premiums and no assurance that the coverage will be any better than the crap coverage they provide for people today. It forces taxpayers to pay subsisidies to insurance companies that only enrich those same companies at far greater cost than if we simply expanded Medicare and made it available to all citizens. It is a bad bill and it will be very unpopular as it gets implemented and it becomes more and more clear that most people get little or nothing out of it and big insurance and big pharma are the big winners.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 23, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to oleeb
oleeb, your assertions are factually inaccurate. First of all, the uninsured in this country amount to about 16% of the population. For the vast majority of those people, their premiums will be capped by subsidies and all people will have their cost-sharing limited by new standards for actuarial value. On top of that, the bill clearly establishes minimum benefits and mandates free preventative care, refuting your claim that they would only have access to the sort of restrictive, 'catastrophic' coverage that many people are forced to get now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 23, 2009 1:57 PM in reply to Stroszek
BS! Nothing I've said is incorrect. It just doesn't agree with your falsely rosy scenario of how this very bad plan will be good for people. The kind of approach you are saying will be good for people is the stuff that gives government programs a bad reputation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 23, 2009 2:07 PM in reply to oleeb
My "rosy scenario" is nothing more than the actual content of the legislation and the findings of statistical models.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 23, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to mostman
The poll doesn't actually ask the respondents if they support a public option, and doesn't ask them how they'd vote if the Dems passed the bill without a public option.
Your reasoning is flawed, as is that of PPP's president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 23, 2009 2:16 PM in reply to mostman
Read it again: the public option is not a problem with those polled. The downside with it included reflects, instead, the damage done by the Republican/right-wing lying, which has increased the confusion quotient.
I'll wait, though, for more recognizable polls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 23, 2009 12:36 PM
This isn't terribly surprising but if they were to drop the rotten bill they have put together and instead pass Medicare for All and implement it within 18 months the story would be dramatically different. Medicare for All would be incredibly popular, it would work, it would be relatively simply and easy to implement, it would save us trillions of dollars over time, it would be a massive benefit to our people and our businesses.
But God forbid the Democrats should upset the parasites who profit from the current rotten system. Instead, they would rather try "insurance reform" saddling us for another generation with a for profit healthcare system that benefits only the parasites and which promises to bankrupt the nation (if our profligate military spending doesn't do so first).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 23, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to oleeb
"Medicare for All" would be "insurance reform" too. Medicare isn't the NHS. It doesn't run hospitals. It's an insurance program.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 23, 2009 1:36 PM in reply to Stroszek
Don't try to confuse Oleeb and Indie Pro with the facts. They're insurance shills who want to tank all reform under the guise of "it's not good enough."
They ignore the fact that this bill will end yearly and lifetime benefit caps and prevent insurers from denying because of pre-existing conditions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 2:21 PM in reply to FreeRider
the senate bill doesn't bring the industry under anti-trust laws.
There are 2 exchanges for every state. (making the pool weak)
The PO is in name only.
illegal immigrants can't buy insurance in the exchanges with their own money, which ensures more emergency room healthcare
premiums will be skyrocketing and the dems will get the blame, and all the can say is it could've been worse, which is a piss poor argument, regardless.
consumer protection laws are gutted due to selling across state lines
there is no oversight or regulations, but there are mandates
opt out can begin right away, but PO doesn't go into effect until 2014
The minimum actuarial level of the lowest level qualified health insurance is 60%
if there are saving in healthcare, there is no mechanism to ensure that those saving will effect premiums. Savings can go straight into the pockets of insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 23, 2009 2:34 PM in reply to Indie Pro
There are so many lies in your posts, you've proven yourself to be an even bigger insurance shill. Hope they're paying you as much money as they're paying Bachmann to spread such manure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 2:37 PM in reply to FreeRider
thats the senate bill moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 23, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Nope. That's your bullshit, you moronic insurance shill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 2:43 PM in reply to FreeRider
just because you wish it doesn't make it true.
and I'm arguing for more regulations, controls, oversite, and competition of the insurance industry.
you are arguing for the industry giveaway.
You don't even know you're a dupe.
You make no sense. You don't even know what is in the senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
November 23, 2009 2:53 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Indie Pro...you have worn out your welcome out here with all your name calling and such a huge ego driven commnetary. I only wish I had an ignore button for your boring posts!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 2:58 PM in reply to Progressive Party
awwwww. I'm sowwy I don't agwee with you. It's hard on the internet I know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 23, 2009 3:14 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Indie,
I know we fly 2 different flags but I do agree... there is very little reform. The big reasons for all this to begin with was there were so many without insurance yet by CBO's est there will still be between 18 25 million still not covered.
There is a mandate where now there is a new CRIME in America of not wanting to purchase insurance.
There is NOTHING that will bring down HC costs. That's my big bitch!
So the Brain Trust in DC thinks... Hmmmm lets make insurers cover everything and Force bankrupt states to enroll more in medicaid oh and insurance won't go up my ass. And for some reason there are those that think there is a magic healthcare fairy. This will be very expensive for EVERYBODY. Any supposed costs will be passed on to consumers. It always will be. This bill is a heap a shit, should be thrown out and more really address the costs!
All this does is put new paint and shiny wheels and new tires on an old jalopy that is gonna fall apart any day.
All this on top of 12 trillion in the hole. Just brilliant. Stick to your guns Indie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to Odel Roo
I'm not sure what flag you fly or what flag you think I fly, but I appreciate your comment.
I agree with your comment as well.
Some people on TPM want to run off anyone with a different opinion, or who isn't 100% behind Obama or the democratic party; if your opinion is different, keep it to yourself. Some sort of borg mentality. They've been after me for a long time.
If they'd offer an argument, besides "liar!", "Go Away!" or "You're mean!", I might agree. I'll def say when I'm wrong. I'm not scared of that. It happens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 23, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to Indie Pro
My basic thoughts outright in the whole HCR is what are the root issues and what is proposed to mitigate these issues and from what I understand very little if anything is being done to mitigate the (in my view) the main issues of COST!
What exactly is the end state? Will I be better off? Nope my prediction is i will have to pay more for my families insurance.
My collage age daughter will be FORCED to buy insurance or pay a fine she can't afford or go to jail. Really nice for her!
This really does not make sense.
I really hope we don't have a housing crisis. Next thing we know we will be mandated to buy a home or go to jail. Maybe if my home is too large I will have to pay more in tax so there is more govt homes we can give to people or to subsidize their mortgages.
The only winners in this that i can see are the egos of the royalty in DC regardless of party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to Odel Roo
I think under the senate bill you'd be able to keep your daughter on your plan.
but, I agree with you.
many people are contractors and temps these days. many of these people are not covered by a health plan, and they will be affected by this bill. I know quite a few people who are above 400% of poverty who struggle and are living near paycheck to paycheck, and this bill is not gonna help them. it'll give them a little more hardship
While I understand that some projections say premiums may be 25% lower under the senate bill, 10 to 20 years from now, those same projections are saying that people will be spending around 20% of their income as well. Forced to spend that 20% of their income. Above 400% of poverty there is no premium cap.
If savings are found in healthcare due to reform, what mechanism forces the insurance industry to pass those savings along to us? What keeps them honest?
Without competition or controls of some sort, we are being thrown to the wolves.
In the long term, I believe it is progressive/liberal ideas that'll be needed, but if this is what they have to offer, who will care to listen to them later?
If the dem party of 2008 is as effectual as the party of 2006, what are their long term chances of holding power?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
November 23, 2009 10:00 PM in reply to FreeRider
Don't try to confuse Oleeb and Indie Pro with the facts. They're insurance shills who want to tank all reform under the guise of "it's not good enough."
Looking more and more like a Lieberman sockpuppet all the time. Same playbook, same projection, same wild namecalling in place of rational argument.
...on second thought, the above-quoted comment is a bit out there, even for a Lieberman sockpuppet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 23, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to Stroszek
Insurance reform yes, but one that would fundamentally change how healthcare is delivered in this country. It would shrink the malignant health insurance industry and would bring the abusive practices of big pharma under control. It would be substantive change in all of healthcare. The garbage they are trying to foist upon us in DC right now is nothing but a special interest bill of goodies for the insurance and pharma industries.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 2:32 PM in reply to oleeb
exactly,
but with just the right carrot so dupes like them will go along
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
November 23, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to oleeb
I'm of a mind that whatever is passed as HCR (really Health Care Insurance Reform (HCIR) will eventually be rolled in with the whole Medicare Experience just for the sake of expediency. Of course, we may all be dead before we have Medicare for all at the rate that things work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 23, 2009 1:58 PM in reply to matyra
Not "may", we will be long dead by the time that happens if this piece of crap legislation is approved.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 23, 2009 6:41 PM in reply to oleeb
And where will will be without it?? The insurance industry will keep stripping people from the rolls, denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, and raising premiums through the roof. Something has to be done. Even people who aren't 100% for the bill says it does bring health insurance reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
November 23, 2009 1:46 PM in reply to oleeb
"Half argued for four dreadnoughts, half argued for six. In the event, we compromise at eight." - Winston Churchill (paraphrased from memory) on Pre WWI debate for funding for dreadnoughts.
This is why public option has never gone away. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if we passed mandates but didn't provide a public option? It would be political suicide for those involved. That's why predictions of public options death have always been premature.
This is also why I believe medicare-for-all is still not dead. In the final conference comes the final analysis and that involves political calculations and it also involves calculations to our economics. The fact is health care is a drag on our economy, especially when our competitors like Japan pay only 8% of their GNP towards health care and we pay 16%. We can't bear that kind of burden without undermining the long term economic and security prospects of the U.S.
When the final analysis comes, medicare-for-all makes the most sense on too many levels.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 23, 2009 2:09 PM in reply to Tim
It would be nice if our Democratic Senators and Representatives would shake off their corruption long enough to realize that if they get a bill in conference they can abandone all the atrocious concessions made to the Republicans and to the insurance and pharma and other healthcare lobbies and simply report out Medicare for All it would be beautiful and it would not only be a marvelous historic day for the nation, but it would keep Democrats in power for the next 40-50 years just as Social Security and the other New Deal programs did. But alas, they cannot shake their corrupt ways even for a day I'm afraid. They are as rotten as the system itself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 23, 2009 2:36 PM in reply to oleeb
The bill that comes out of conference is still subject to filibuster! So if they throw off all the things that got Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson and Lieberman on board, you think they won't filibuster it?
Moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
November 23, 2009 12:37 PM
Fuck the polls. In acton is not the answer. If democrats pass health care reform with/ a public option, the public will see the benefits in the long term.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
November 23, 2009 12:43 PM in reply to ru4862
IF it's one that works.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve Garrett
November 23, 2009 2:08 PM in reply to ru4862
There's public options and then there's public options. The one they're talking about now is so small and watered down that you could drown it in a bath tub.
Still it's politically easier to beef up an existing program than to create a new one. Which is why this is such a fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 23, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to Steve Garrett
Exactly on your second point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
November 23, 2009 12:42 PM
So, would a lame HRC bill at least get the ball rolling for future improvements? OGD has a blog outlining how Medicare was enacted, evolved, and expanded. Getting just something out there would be disappointing, perhaps, but is a start.
We can keep the poll losses from destroying the Dems completely come election 2010, and elect some reps with backbone. It's time to publicize the primaries and get people to realize that participation there is as important as voting in general elections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 23, 2009 12:48 PM in reply to matyra
If HCR fails now, it will be off the table for Dems for at least a decade, after which someone will come back with a plan even more limited than what we're seeing now. This is what has happened in the past. Nixon's health care reform plan (which was pretty good by today's standards) got killed and then Clinton came back with a slightly more watered down plan in '93. That got killed and so we have Obama showing up now with even further watered down plan. If this goes down, we'll have President Chelsea Clinton running on high risk pools and $5000 tax credits in 2028.
You're absolutely right that we have to get the ball rolling by showing that health care reform is possible, and the infrastructure and precedents this bill establishes (heavily regulated markets, capping cost-sharing) will be vital to further reforms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 23, 2009 12:50 PM in reply to Stroszek
And yes, I know Nixon wasn't a Dem, but he was the last pol before Clinton to take a stab at reforming the system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
November 23, 2009 1:02 PM in reply to Stroszek
Yeah. I'm torn between both sides. I think that it is essential that we get something passed, or it's another failure. But, then again, what is passed has to do something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 23, 2009 2:11 PM in reply to matyra
What is the downside of not passing a bad bill? We lose a number of blue dog Democrats? What is wrong with that? They are Democrats in name only. I don't see them losing their seats as a bad thing for Democrats at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 23, 2009 2:24 PM in reply to oleeb
It is if those seats are lost to Republicans.
All-or-nothing is unacceptable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
November 23, 2009 2:39 PM in reply to oleeb
If no HCR gets passed, it won't just be the conservadems who do down. It will be Dems of all persuasions. The base will be pissed off and won't come out to the polls next November, thinking they're screwed no matter who wins. Meanwhile, independents will take out their anger on incumbents and conservatives will be movitvated to vote and kick out the liberals.
If the Dems fail to pass HCR that accomplished even a little, it's not inconceivable that they could lose control of both the House and Senate next year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
November 24, 2009 12:31 AM in reply to jdb316
Um, if you haven't noticed, jdb, the base is already pissed off -- and it's not because a bill with the name "HEALTH CARE REFORM" on it hasn't passed yet. You think the base will come out and support the Democratic Party if they're saddled with a mandate to buy private insurance without a public option (or a "public option" so watered down as to render it meaningless)? If so, I have an extra bridge I'm looking to unload. I'll sell it to ya cheap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 23, 2009 6:44 PM in reply to oleeb
So that means the status quo for the next 8 year!!!. And you can be sure if the thugs do take over in 2016 there won't be health care or health reform, premiums will continue to rise, people will continue to be stripped from the rolls and only the rich will be able to afford health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 23, 2009 8:34 PM in reply to lousgirl84
The Democrats are protecting the status quo with their current bills in both houses. Both the house and senate version are gifts to the insurance and pharma industries. Bad legislation in both cases. Winning for the sake of it and then realizing you got little or nothing out of it is a bad way to make policy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
November 23, 2009 12:59 PM in reply to matyra
OGD link not working: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oldengoldendecoy/2009/11/if-the-health-bill-becomes-reality-what-could-transpire-over-the-next-four-decades.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 23, 2009 1:02 PM in reply to matyra
the difference being that because of the mandates, and the rise of premiums this will affect all citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bob5540
November 23, 2009 1:22 PM
Fuggit. Fuggitaboutit.
http://55-40.blogspot.com/2009/11/single-payer.html
I think the Dems are heading for catastrophe no matter what happens...unless they get bold and throw the whole mess out and pass Medicare for all and it kicks in before the next election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 23, 2009 2:12 PM in reply to bob5540
Yep
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
November 23, 2009 1:26 PM
Did PPP poll what would happen if the reform were passed without a public option? That seems to have been left out, so I think drawing conclusions about dropping the PO from the bill may be a bit premature, even if you're gonig by one poll. (Not that a drop from an eight to a five point lead is something that anyone should be worrying about anyway)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dakerjak
November 23, 2009 1:40 PM
The outcome should lie somewhere between "mostman" and "bob5540". Reform without competition assures that nothing changes with respect to cost containment and delivery of services. The pablum regarding a policy forcing private insurers to take all comers will only raise rates for the existing pool.
This issue is one where incrementalism will only prove to many that the government can't do
anything right.
Our congress folk have to become big boys and girls and do what is right in the face of possible flak or defeat at home.
Progressives have paid a dear price for the initiatives of the 60's, but at the end of the day we are a far better nation for having done it.
My fear is that we are becoming a third world country with nuclear weapons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dakerjak
November 23, 2009 1:43 PM
The outcome should lie somewhere between "mostman" and "bob5540". Reform without competition assures that nothing changes with respect to cost containment and delivery of services. The pablum regarding a policy forcing private insurers to take all comers will only raise rates for the existing pool.
This issue is one where incrementalism will only prove to many that the government can't do
anything right.
Our congress folk have to become big boys and girls and do what is right in the face of possible flak or defeat at home.
Progressives have paid a dear price for the initiatives of the 60's, but at the end of the day we are a far better nation for having done it.
My fear is that we are becoming a third world country with nuclear weapons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
November 23, 2009 2:47 PM
I have a modest suggestion. How about we have the debate first and then vote after? There will presumably be an amendment to strip the PO and I truly want to hear the debate between the Dems who oppose the PO (the Republicans are irrelevant) and those in favor. Maybe it's time for rationality to play some part in our national decision-making. Let the Senate debate the pros and cons of the PO. Then vote on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
November 23, 2009 11:33 PM
It is well proven that our laws are consistently being improved upon. Equal pay is an improvement to equal rights. Including sexual orientation as part of hate crimes is an improvement. Blacks have many more rights now than they had when the first civil rights legislation was passed. At some point you have to get the ball rolling.
So the argument goes that if a bill passes and people don't see a decrease in their premiums then they are gonna throw out the whole reform package and reinstate discrimination for pre-existing conditions, rescission, and take away the out-of-pocket caps. And if a small public option does pass, in the future they will just kill it rather than build on it. This just doesn't make sense to me. I think the passing and failure of this bill only makes a stronger case for Medicare for all.
And I believe that is exactly what Republicans and the insurance industry already know. Think about how detrimental it would be for them if this reform actually works. They would act like crazed lunatics, just like now.
If it passes and works, Republicans would cease to exist.
If it passes and doesn't work, they will appear to be golden gods.
There is obviously good in the bill or the Republicans wouldn't oppose it to vehemently. In general "if Republicans hate it, it must be good".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?