Blue Dogs Oppose Deficit Reducing PO Supported By 65% Of Americans

While Kent Conrad opposes the public option because, he says, it does not fit "our culture," 65% of Americans disagree with Conrad:

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?"

Favor 65%, Oppose 26%

Of course, being a "deficit hawk," Conrad and Blue Dogs are having a hard time explaining why they oppose the one proposal that actually WOULD REDUCE the budget deficit by $110 billion AND is supported by 65% of Americans.

More and more, ConservaDems and Blue Dogs are being unmasked as nothing but lackeys for the insurance industry. Nothing else explains their behavior.

Speaking for me only

< R.I.P. Susan Atkins | Mandates Minus PO = Dem Political Suicide >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re;; (none / 0) (#1)
    by az on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:04:13 AM EST
    Leading Question ......

    -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -?

    Why won't you get a lopsided result....

    The NBC poll comes out as 48 oppose 46 support with a different type of question.

    Public Option is dead ...

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:07:33 AM EST
    The question reflects the actual proposal in the House bills.

    The NBC question reflects, well, nothing.

    The leading question is NBCs, not the NYTimes.


    Re: (none / 0) (#3)
    by az on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:16:07 AM EST
    We don't know how the bill is going to turn out after the legislative process , we don't  know if it would be run or implemented like medicare after it is enacted.

    What is somewhat certain is that , it would be government administered.

    NY Times is the leading question.


    Ummm (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    How in the hell is listing the ACTUAL proposal from the House of Representatives a leading question as opposed to NBC's hypothetical tethered to no reality?



    Re: (none / 0) (#5)
    by az on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:41:13 AM EST
    Medicare is an overwhelmingly popular program , asking a leading question like that is aimed at achieving a certain bias . The bill is still going through the legislative process , we don't know  if it would end up being like medicare at the end of the day . If there is a public option , we don't know what type of public option it would be and it is not known if it would be as popular as medicare is today , linking it to medicare and to seniors would evoke certain impulses in people that would lead to a lopsided outcome .

    NY Times asked a leading question  based on the way a political bias of a certain segment would want it . When NBC didn't include choice in its question , there was an uproar . This is basically the same thing.

    It is going to be government administered and would be in competition with private insurers , that should be the parameters of any polling question in my view....Not phrasing aimed at helping partisans...


    Patterning your proposal (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:49:54 AM EST
    on an overwhelmingly popular program os smart politics, and that is what the House has done.

    You want to deny the reality of that fact because, it seems to me, you oppose the use of that model.

    That does not make it leading.

    That makes it reality based.

    You want a poll of imaginary proposals, not actual proposals.



    The poll shows (none / 0) (#7)
    by dk on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    that 65% Americans support choice for everyone.  None of bills under consideration in Congress allow for choice for everyone.

    "choice for everyone" (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 08:10:48 PM EST
    How about the freedom to choose no insurance (i.e. have it available to all but no public mandate which is really a hidden tax).  The reason there is mandatory car insurance, after all, is that people crash their cars into OTHER people on the road and that they should be protected.