New Health Care Ad Blasts GOP: “Who Are They Listening To?”
Get ready for the debate set to shift hard to health care this week, with President Obama set to address the American Medical Association later this morning.
First up: A powerful liberal group allied with the White House is going up on the air with a new spot that hammers Republicans for refusing to back health care reform despite majorities who are demanding it:
The spot, which is being aired on D.C. cable by the labor-backed Americans United For Change, casts the health care battle as a purely partisan standoff, citing a poll showing 62% back the President’s plan. “If the Republicans in Congress ignore what sixty-two percent of us support, you gotta wonder: Who are they listening to?” it asks.
The ad, though, also describes the President’s plan as offering the option to choose a public insurance plan, to create competition with private insurers. That goal isn’t only opposed by Republicans; it has created deep divisions among Congressional Dems.
The battling among Dems over a public option has made it trickier for outside groups driving the White House message to cast the fight as nothing more than the “Party of No” Republicans versus a popular President, as they did with previous fights.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
I agree that healthcare needs to be reformed, streamlined etc – and that there is a lot of waste. I don’t, however, believe that the government can administrate a government plan… because when have they done anything right? ever?
Now our vice president says “everyone guessed wrong on the stimulis”… they GUESSED wrong? Guessed? Now that blindly passed 800billion dollar bill is looking more & more like a boondoggle. If I were a democratic congress-person I would be very worried… that vote is going to cost them the house.
If this administration is going to help healthcare like they are helping the auto industry – then here is the plan.. “don’t get sick”
I’m not a member of the GOP – but a pig is a pig – and so far this admin is stinking up the place.
Sixty-two percent – Who are they listening to?
I did a spreadsheet shortly after Specter switched sides, in which I allocated half of each state’s population to each of its senators (I gave MN to Franken and Klobuchar). The Republicans represent between 36 and 37%. Does that answer the question?
The government already administers several kinds of health plans,and does it very well. First, the VA health system is a fine, fine system, providing comprehensive health care to our US veterans with very little paperwork, bureaucracy or delay in treatment. Next, it provides a baseline health plan for seniors including hospitalization and outpatient care. The prescription drug plan is nothing to write home about, but it was designed by Republicans, so what do you expect? Finally, it provides a baseline health care program to the poorest American citizens and their children. That one is subject to nasty Republican politics but it still covers basic health care for poor children. All but the most meanspirited, angry rightwing ideologues don’t begrudge basic health care to children.
Obviously you’re right, Greg. The debate has already shifted hard if you get a post like Shari’s right off the bat on Monday morning.
Ok, here’s what I don’t get – if 62% poll in favor, then WHO are the Repugs listening to?
When Bush had high approval numbers, the Dems groveled. Now the situation is reversed, and does the GOP grovel? Hell no – they ignore the majority and go right after their ideology come hell or high water.
Can’t they read polls? What do they think they’re doing? Cause all I see them doing is creating a permanent minority for themselves. Why don’t they see that?
The Republicans never allow facts and Dems to get in the way. They think being bipartisan means Dems accepting whatever the Republicans wants. The Dems, themselves are divided.
Another thing: the Health Care Industry has got its fangs deep into the Senate. I mentioned Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson’s donations and campaign contributions health care companies a while back. Now I find Dodd’s wife sitting on the board or working of four health care companies. How in the hell can these people vote independently when they are so deep in the money muck. It is enough to make one sick!
If the Republicans and the Blue Dog Dems in Congress ignore what sixty-two percent of us support, you gotta wonder: Who are they listening to?
Need three guesses?
Do those 63% really know what the President’s plan entails? Do any of us know what this plan is going to look like once it comes out of Congress? (How? I haven’t seen anything yet but draft proposals. We still have three committees in the House posing different options, don’t we? And significant differences between the House and Senate plans, right?) I imagine that the 62% number matches up pretty well with the President’s approval percentage and as such it means virtually nothing – it could hardly be characterized as informed about the specifics . . . because they don’t yet exist. I think there are legitimate concerns about how a public insurance option is to be implemented – if they do it wrong it could plausibly lead to the demise of the insurance industry, and that would mean a significant impact tot he economy, it would mean that I would lose the plan I now have, and that would mean that my care would inevitably be doled out based on some government-employed bean counter’s idea of what I deserve. I’m also not too thrilled with the idea of paying taxes on the benefits I currently do receive. I’d like to take a look at that poll and see what kind of specifics they asked the respondents. I think the first poster had a good point about Congress and their tendency to rush things through – we always seem to end up with unintended consequences. Instead of demonizing and making caricatures of those who oppose proposed parts of a still unformed plan, perhaps we should all be listening so that we do this correctly – it really is a matter of life and death. (Comment the first)
Some specifics from that poll:
.
“The Poll finds that, despite broad agreement on the need for health care legislation, there is some division over which aspect of reform should be more of a priority. In other words, voters (49%) say that “controlling the cost of health care” should be a bigger focus than “expanding coverage for Americans without health insurance” (35%).
. . .
“While public support for health care reform is strong, when it comes to paying for health care reform, voters are decidedly against the idea of taxing health benefits. Specifically, only 26% support taxing health benefits, while 68% of voters oppose, with 51% strongly opposing taxing benefits.”
“Some specifics from that poll:” Links, please.
@Eric: Here ya go! This is some really disingenuous advertising. The poll doesn’t even ask anyone about the “President’s health plan,” it finds support out there for the President to enact “a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system.” This does NOT indicate that voters support any particular approach, rather – they support “reform” in general. And who doesn’t?
.
Most Republicans support reforming the healthcare system they simply oppose an expansion of “government’s bureaucracy” and they do not believe that “Americans should be asked to pay more taxes to cover the costs of any comprehensive health care reform legislation.” Hence, they will “not support any legislation that is simply a massive tax hike on Americans cloaked in the name of health care reform.”
.
http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/
It isn’t too difficult to figure out whom the Republicans are listening to. Does the medical insurance industry ring a bell? After all, one of the prominent Repubs (I forget which one, maybe Gingrich or McConnell) said the reason to be against the public health option is that it would put the private health insurance out of business. Are you saying that the well-being of the American people is trumped by the income of the medical insurance CEO’s? Yes, he is.
Or maybe have you ever heard of Big Pharm? Those are the same guys who have used the excuse of the Part D drug benefit to more than double their prices on drugs aimed at the elderly.
When you look at contributions to Repubs and the Democrats opposing the public health option, you find out whom they’re listening to.
I have to laugh at the chicken little’s having a conniption fit about government bureaucracy. They don’t seem to mind a bit the insurance company bureaucracy where people are actually supposed to find reasons not to pay claims in order to boost profits. They don’t seem to mind a bit that the insurance company bureaucracy costs doctors now close to 8% of their time and money fighting with them to get paid.
What is it that these guys think? That somehow a government bureaucracy is inherently out to get them while the insurance bureaucracy has their best interests at heart? What sort of recreational drugs were these guys abusing during their youth?
@Texas: I think you will find many many many many many people do not want to see their current health benefits changed as you seem to desire (”the reason to be against the public health option is that it would put the private health insurance out of business”). I know no one (here) will back me up on this but you are simply misreading the public if you think that most would not mind losing their current coverage and switching to (an eventual) single payer government-run plan. In fact, almost the exact opposite is true. Most people are already covered, and most get their coverage through their jobs through private insurers, and most are satisfied with their current health benefits and treatment. Sure we want to see the uncovered get some protection, sure we want to see prices come down, but we don’t want to lose our current plan and we don’t want those benefits taxed.
Transferable health care would go much farther than public health care. It is basic economics that competition always drives down costs more effectively than government. Transferable health care would give insurance companies incentive to invest in the long term health of their customer and to provide competitive value and prices. Insurance companies would earn more money if less of their customers become seriously ill, and we would have true “health care”, rather than “disease insurance.” For example, insurance companies could create groups of people at varying fitness levels: the more fit someone is, the less insurance would cost, because the risk of heart disease and diabetes would be less, statistically. The fitness levels could be tested by doctors. This would give customers added incentive to become more fit to save money on insurance. Another health factor that insurance companies could become involved in is nutrition.
So if the polls shift next week, is it the duty of the politicians to chase after them? Once the government takes over something, the prospect of the newly created and/or empowered government agencies relinquishing power is exceedingly remote. The notion that we should rush into a government-run health system (and accept Obama’s unrealistic premise that it won’t run private care into the ground) because some poll question got a 62% affirmative response is asinine.
Note that the ad comes to us courtesy of the labor unions. Thanks, guys, you’ve done such wonders for the health of our auto industry; I’m sure you want to do the same thing for the rest of us.
Yay for sbj and chicago….you guys hit it on the head. The problem with many Americans is that they don’t know the details and are NOT making informed decisions. Ignorance is bliss…..like, Obama just make it all better, K? haha. It’s the Obama cheerleaders that seem to have blinders on. People need to look at each administration critically regardless of party. Protectionism..yes, competition…yes, Public Plan..hell no.