Tapper Says It: Majority Wants Public Option More Than Bipartisanship
With some people still talking about trying to win over Olympia Snowe by dropping the public option with the opt out and replacing it with a trigger, Jake Tapper steps up and offers a useful reminder:
More Americans Prefer Public Option to Bipartisan Bill
That’s a reference to the recent WaPo/ABC News poll, which found that a comfortable majority, 57%, prefer a Dem-only bill with a public option to a bipartisan bill without one. What this means, in a nutshell, is that when people are informed of the important fact that a bipartisan bill is different in policy terms from a Dem-only one, they no longer care about bipartisanship for its own sake.
This is newly relevant right now, as Tapper notes:
The question has some relevance, since Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, is the only Republican lawmaker to show willingness to vote for a health care reform bill pushed by Democrats, but she opposes the public option. Some in the White House have worked hard to bring Snowe on board, thinking she provides cover for moderate Democrats and wanting to be able to say they passed a bill with bipartisan support. Some in Congress have argued that Snowe’s support is not worth it, given her opposition to the public option.
As you regulars know, this has been a pet obsession of this blog, and it’s gratifying to see it gaining a tiny bit of traction.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
What’s interesting is how close that 57% is to those committed on voting for cloture on a bill with a public option.
mike – that’s true and has been almost all along.
Huh – funny thing.
Imagine the results of the poll if they excluded everyone who couldn’t define “public option”.
“Imagine the results of the poll if they excluded everyone who couldn’t define “public option”.”
Well, Dan, that’s rather hard to do when nobody really knows who does and who doesn’t understand PO.
Danp,
I don’t put much stock in that polling on who does or doesn’t understand what the PO is. For the purposes of measuring public support on this, all that matters is whether people grasp the basic concept — government is offering the choice of an alternative plan — not the details.
I’m sort of wondering why Snowe doesn’t support the opt-out plan in the Senate, since Maine shows so much support for the PO, especially from Indy’s. I don’t see how she can continue to oppose this personally. But then I’m not a Republican.
“I’m sort of wondering why Snowe doesn’t support the opt-out plan in the Senate, since Maine shows so much support for the PO,”
I don’t either and I haven’t all along. Maine supports it and you’d think she’d be watching what her constituents want.
Didn’t Snowe declare, just a couple of days ago, that she would not vote for a bill with any form of Public Option, even a Trigger Option?
Greg,
Would you see if you can nail that down? If that is the case, then why would anyone be still trying to cater to her?
We can pass what Traitor Joe and Snowe Job want, without them.
tapper is an useful beltway idiot, at best. why quote him ?
“tapper is an useful beltway idiot, at best. why quote him ?”
Same reason he continually quotes Politico?
Good polling.
AR
Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?
56% Favor, 37% Oppose
Favorable / Unfavorable
Blanche Lincoln: 41 / 49
If Blanche Lincoln votes against a public option as part of health care reform, will that make you more likely or less likely to vote for her in the 2010 general election or would it have no real effect on your vote?
16% More, 29% Less, 55% No effect
If Blanche Lincoln joined Republican senators in filibustering and killing a health care reform bill because it had a public health insurance option, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote for her in the 2010 general election or would it have no real effect on your vote?
15% More, 32% Less, 53% No effect
IN
Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?
52% Favor, 42% Oppose
Do you think adding a public option would be harmful to the people of Indiana, helpful, or make no difference?
53% Help, 40% Harm, 7% No difference
Favorable / Unfavorable
Evan Bayh: 62 / 30
If Evan Bayh voted against a strong public health insurance option as part of health care reform, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote for him in the 2010 general election or would it have no real effect on your vote?
19% More, 27% Less, 54% No effect
If Evan Bayh joined Republican senators in filibustering and killing a health care bill because it had a public option, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote for him in the 2010 general election or would it have no real effect on your vote?
18% More, 29% Less, 53% No effect
Ohio
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 52 / 45 (chart)
Olympia (and Susan, for that matter) think they know better than us. The public option is candy, it’s bad for us, and it’s their job to keep us from rotting our teeth.
I half paid attention to Morning Joe today, but there was a point where everyone at the table was chuckling about the PO, how it’s not gonna happen, was never gonna happen, and everybody from the WH to Reid and Pelosi on down knows it. Pure lip service to the liberals.
The cynicism wears me out.
basic concept — government is offering the choice of an alternative plan – Greg
I’d be satisfied if only people who understood that much were polled. Then again, some of the versions don’t actually offer any option to people if their income suggests they can afford private coverage, or if their employer offers private insurance, regardless of its quality.
“I half paid attention to Morning Joe today, but there was a point where everyone at the table was chuckling about the PO, how it’s not gonna happen, was never gonna happen, and everybody from the WH to Reid and Pelosi on down knows it. Pure lip service to the liberals.”
Jeez – every damn day the PO dies and rises again 3 or 4 times. That is one ragged zombie; but it’s not dead no matter what they say.
The doucheebag joe friggging lieberman
“Sounding more like an independent than a Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., tells ABC News he will campaign for some Republican candidates during the 2010 midterm elections and may not seek the Democratic Senate nomination when he runs for re-election in 2012.
“I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the election in 2010. I’m going to call them as I see them,” Lieberman said in an ABC News “Subway Series” interview aboard the U.S. Capitol Subway System. ”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/independent-sen-joe-lieberman-hell-back-republicans-2010/story?id=8952240
Snowe would support bill with trigger. to my knowledge she only ruled out supporting bill with opt out.
Kathleen – the cynicism wears me out too. I hoped it had gone out of style, but I underestimated the extent to which it’s apparently a permanent factor in DC ‘coolness’.
Juck Foe Lieberman.
In how many ways can he screw Democrats and still be given the time of day? Let him start and the end of the effing table *as a Gooper*. I’m tired of his boolshite.
“Juck Foe Lieberman. ”
I totally agree but I don’t know what can be done now. He’s in his last term and he’s going to use it to wring every last bit of revenge he can out of the situation. He is the walking embodiment of petty spite.
I underestimated the extent to which it’s apparently a permanent factor in DC ‘coolness’.
Without ennui you don’t count if you aspire to be one of the kewl kids in the Beltway journalists club.
“Without ennui you don’t count if you aspire to be one of the kewl kids in the Beltway journalists club.”
Traditionally, ennui is accompanied by at least a modicum of intelligence. As usual, Americans have taken a European attitude, messed it all up and walked out of the store without paying for it.
Joe Scarborough isn’t smart enough to be authentically cynical.
From Krugman in the NY Times this morning. Regarding Bill and Lieberman.
“Thus, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut says, “I want to be able to vote for a health bill, but my top concern is the deficit.” That would be a serious objection to the proposals currently on the table if they would, in fact, increase the deficit. But they wouldn’t, at least according to the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the House bill, in particular, would actually reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next decade.”
“I won’t try to psychoanalyze the “naysayers,” as Mr. Orszag describes them. I’d just urge them to take a good hard look in the mirror. If they really want to align themselves with the hard-line conservatives, if they just want to kill health reform, so be it. But they shouldn’t hide behind claims that they really, truly would support health care reform if only it were better designed.”
“For this is the moment of truth. The political environment is as favorable for reform as it’s likely to get. The legislation on the table isn’t perfect, but it’s as good as anyone could reasonably have expected. History is about to be made — and everyone has to decide which side they’re on.”
Here’s the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=2&hp
Tena-
Yeah, I was just needing to get that offa my chest. One wonders if some of the badass Senate Democratic leadership from back in the day would have put up with this. I don’t have a problem with any individual Senator needing a little quid pro quo for a vote. I’m not naive-what pisses me off is how public Liebershite is about it.
He’s like school in the summertime-no class.
“I don’t have a problem with any individual Senator needing a little quid pro quo for a vote. I’m not naive-what pisses me off is how public Liebershite is about it.”
O I agree – I’m just sayin. He’s in the mofoing catbird seat. Or so it seems – surely someone among his senatorial colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, has some kind of leverage with him.
@Greg
“Snowe would support bill with trigger. to my knowledge she only ruled out supporting bill with opt out.”
I don’t know if that’s accurate anymore though. While Harry Reid was speaking about using the opt-out, he specifically said she would not support ANY version of the public option. I’m curious if she’s clarified this, but it was my impression that she’s now 100% against any form of the PO.
“he specifically said she would not support ANY version of the public option. I’m curious if she’s clarified this, but it was my impression that she’s now 100% against any form of the PO.”
I’m beginning to feel like I’m an air traffic controller, following the PO on the screen every day.
Traditionally, ennui is accompanied by at least a modicum of intelligence. As usual, Americans have taken a European attitude, messed it all up and walked out of the store without paying for it.
Joe Scarborough isn’t smart enough to be authentically cynical.
Well, but don’t forget that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
One wonders if some of the badass Senate Democratic leadership from back in the day would have put up with this. I don’t have a problem with any individual Senator needing a little quid pro quo for a vote. I’m not naive-what pisses me off is how public Liebershite is about it.
I can’t imagine LBJ tolerating it. I can imagine it happening then, but I can’t imagine he wouldn’t have deliberately found a back-door way to make the Liebermanesque senator intensely regret his or her (Margaret Chase Smith was in the Senate then) public actions.
oddjob – and Joe has as little as possible.
oddjob-
You read my mind as to who and what I was referring to! Cheers!
LBJ was the master of intimidation – he got right into people’s space and physically leaned on them.
I saw Obama back Lieberman into a corner physically right after he was nominated.
TPM is reporting that Lieberman IS going to run again. That does change things. I just can’t quite decide how it changes things, yet.
@Greg: “For the purposes of measuring public support on this, all that matters is whether people grasp the basic concept — government is offering the choice of an alternative plan — not the details.”
Now that’s just crazy talk.
“Now that’s just crazy talk.”
Might be, if people by and large didn’t already have a template. Medicare.
I think the idea of a government alternative is fairly well understood and I fail to see what difference a bunch of details makes to anyone other than policy wonks and the species Trollus Pilisplittus
I see, details don’t matter – like, for instance, “You won’t be eligible.” Or, would you still support the PO if you knew you could receive subsisides to buy private insurance instead?”
The PO is not like Medicare – that’s precisely why you can’t trust a poll that uses that framing.
“Medicare is larger than any private insurance company; the “option” in both bills will be small. The traditional Medicare program is a single program with uniform benefits; the “option” in both bills will be a balkanized program that may not be available in all parts of the country. Medicare is administered by public employees; the “options” in both bills will be administered by private-sector corporations, some or all of which will be insurance companies. The “option” in neither bill resembles Medicare.”
Can this site please quit citing one poll and acting like that is what the public wants, particularly when it is a poll that is an outlier as far as job approval is concernced and even the most respected political observers are calling its party ID samples ridiculous?