Will They Ever Get It?

It isn't necessary or even desirable to "get it" by making stories agree.

If both stories are honest journalism then these just show a poll results and a problem about VA care.

The trouble is the NYT and most other big papers. So-called "analysis" articles have almost totally replaced careful presentation of facts.

In effect the front page is now another OpEd page.

Objective journalism is an ideal. It can't be caught but it can be pursued. The pursuit has ended at the NYT.

I don't know where the NYT gets their information. In reading the latest polls no clear majority supports a government-run healthcare system.

-W
http://bill84121.blogspot.com

The NYT/CBS poll was shown as false by several news agencies. It was over represented by in the poll by democrats who supported Obama (66%+ if I remember the number correctly). And then weighted on top of that so that it showed the false high support numbers.... google around and you'll find numerous articles.

W:" In reading the latest polls no clear majority supports a government-run healthcare system. "

Could you cite your polls please? The WSJ, Kaiser, EBRI, Consumer Reports, and Lake Research poll show support for a public health care option of between 60-80%. Rassmussen, as usual, was the outlier at 41%, the same amount as the percentage of adjusted-by-Rassmussens-proprietary-blackbox-voter-model who said they supported public health care. On June 17th, Gallup posed as who did you trust; Obama (who has been pushing the public option) was cited by 58% of the respondents.

Could you please cite your "latest polls"? Thanks.

Times Watch (source)

As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll's data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain. What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain. As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.

One thing hasn't changed: The poll's pro-Democrat "weighting" continues. There were complaints in early April, the last time CBS News and the Times teamed up for a poll, that the poll's "weighting" process produced far more self-identified Democrat than Republican respondents, which would certainly tilt the paper's findings to the left. In that last poll, NYT/CBS managed to turn a eight-point raw Democratic advantage of respondents (35%-27%) into a sixteen-point margin (39%-23%) through its mysterious weighting process. "Weighting" itself is standard polling practice, but the April gap was wide enough to draw questions of pro-Democratic favoritism.

This time around, the gap between the official number and the raw numbers is far wider.

The raw figures for the latest poll showed a small gap of two points (34%-32% Democrats over Republicans). That two-point spread somehow became a yawning 14 points (38%-24% Democrats over Republicans) after the weighting.

The Times poll doesn't break out the raw figures, but CBS does, on the last page of the CBS poll release.

First, the raw numbers: Out of 895 total poll respondents, 310 described themselves as independents, 301 Democrats, and 284 Republicans. That broke down as 34% independents, 34% Democrats, and 32% Republicans, just a two-point gap between the parties.

Those raw figures were then whisked away into the poll kitchen, the secret "weighting" ingredients were added, and the recipe came out puffed up with far more Democrats: 345 Independents, 339 Democrats, and 211 Republicans. That broke down into the stark 14-point gap between Democrats (38%) and Republicans (24%) that the Times cited, with independents at 38%.

The actual poll? As Zeleny's story indicated, the Times did find Americans mostly disapproved of his handling of efforts to save Chrysler and General Motors and had made no impact on helping the economy.

A posting at CBS.com emphasized how support for gay marriage dipped back to 33% in the current poll, after peaking at 42% in April. The Times story was silent on the dip in support for gay marriage but found time to note that approval for the Republican Party was "the lowest rating ever in a New York Times/CBS News poll." That represents a three-point drop from the last NYT/CBS poll, from 31% favorable to 28% unfavorable.

[P.S.according to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama. The actual vote was 46% (corrected) McCain. So, 29% of McCain voters ignored by the poll must not be Americans, according to the NYTs methodology, and there are about as much an overpolling of Obama voters.]

If the government ran healthcare option is essentially an expansion of the "free clinics", I don't have much problem with it. But I have a feeling that it ain't.

Some hospitals in LA county are already overwhelmed with poor immigrants (mostly Latinos). The nurses and doctors I've spoken to fear cost exceeding more than a trillion dollars. California has trouble meeting its current financial obligation as it is.

Can you really say truthfully that private insurance companies have run healthcare payments in an efficient and timely manner? And is it your honest opinion that it is appropriate for insurance companies to deny payment for treatment (and therefore the treatment itself) that a doctor deems appropriate for a patient?

I don't think so and I think if you say otherwise you're being dishonest.

Please accept my apologies for my last garbled post. I was in a hurry and pasted the draft comment. Here is what is should have been pasted:

The NYT/CBS polls have consistently been shown to be inaccurate and biased towards pro-democrat. The latest poll on support for health care is not an exception. Bruce Kesler discovered the Old Gray Lady spoke with two democrats for every one Republican polled:

According to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama. The actual vote was 48% McCain. So, 29% of McCain voters ignored by the poll must not be Americans, according to the NYTs methodology, and there are about as much an overpolling of Obama voters. http://tinyurl.com/npufbz

There is a good report by Times Watch on the problems/biases with previous NYT/CBS polls. See the full article here: http://tinyurl.com/loocho

Wow. The Times' poll was inaccurate because it spoke to more Democrats than Republicans? Would it also be inaccurate if it spoke to more Democrats than Green Party voters?

Speaking of "getting it," some folks really need to. There ARE more Democrats than Republicans! By a HUGE percentage! That's just one of the reasons we have a Democrat in the White House! You don't level the playing field by party affiliation! That's not called polling; that's called asking your friends their opinion. You take a random sampling.

And, Mr. Stossel, you need to 'get it' also. If there are problems at the VA (lord knows there are) then the problems need to be FIXED. If you have a problem with your spouse, do you try to fix the problem or do you automatically get a divorce?

The lack of common sense boggles the mind...

Slice and dice poll numbers and statistics from here 'til Christmas. It merely clouds the core of the debate. The issue, as I see it, is whether government should exist for reasons far in excess of Constitutional prescription. But even giving "statism" its inch of rope, where is the line drawn which prevents the taking the whole mile? Bail outs, welfare, social engineering, apologies, corporate takeovers ... remember that old saying about every problem looking like a nail when the only tool you own is a hammer.

Not only did the poll oversample Obama voters, it also overpolled the unemployed by a factor of 2-to-1. Gee I wonder what unemployed people said about someone else paying for their healthcare?

In addition, when talking about support for healthcare it dissipates almost entirely when:

1) people are asked if they are willing to pay extra to get it (only about 40% are)
2) it includes illegal aliens (it drops to somewhere around 25%)
3) it inhibits their choice of doctors (the proposals on the table right now are all HMO-style plans)
4) it affects the quality of healthcare (as it inevitably will as the very best doctors will opt out of taking insurance and only serve more well-to-do clients who can afford to pay for their services in cash).

and so on.

Polls like this, even when they aren't total propaganda, are meaningless because they don't ask the questions that matter when it comes to a potential national health care insurance.

As the nation learned during its previous flirtation with HillaryCare, the devil is in the details. When people find out the details, they tell you to go meet the devil (in not so nice of terms).

There's a different between the "ideal" of national health care, and the reality. Ask Canadians who are waiting 9+ hours in emergency room. Ask Britons whose system sets a goal of 4 hours waiting time in an emergency room and can't meet it. Then ask yourself if you think waiting between 4-9 hours in an EMERGENCY room is something you want to endure. Then you'll have your answer as to whether or not ObamaCare is for you.

Two comments?

1. Who is Tori Barnett? She shows up as the author of each post on my RSS reader. Is John Stossel really writing this? Or is Tori?

2. This is a similar comment to the one I left here. http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/06/health-insurance.html In fact, it looks like the same comment applies to every post. You grant the collectivists the premise that they don't know what they are doing. In this post you state, "Don’t they draw connections?" They know exactly what they are doing. They are looting. Where is the moral condemnation of that? Nowhere to be found on this blog.

If this is the best you can do, I am not sure it is worth following this blog.

Will Stossel ever get it?

Government does not have a monopoly on incompetence or stupidity. Private medicine screws up just as often and just as badly as government programs.

And for every story of incompetence and stupidity you hear, there are countless instances of good care that goes unreported because someone with a political agenda can't sneer at it.

The difference is that under a single-payer system, you don't have to be employed, under 40, and in perfect health to get coverage.

But I guess government-funded or government-run health care is evil government-as-the-solution socialism, right? The way Medicare is socialism, and Social Security is socialism, and publicly funded education is socialism. Should we get rid of those because government sometimes screws up?

Will Stossel ever get it?

Government does not have a monopoly on incompetence or stupidity. Private medicine screws up just as often and just as badly as government programs.

And for every story of incompetence and stupidity you hear, there are countless instances of good care that goes unreported because someone with a political agenda can't sneer at it.

The difference is that under a single-payer system, you don't have to be employed, under 40, and in perfect health to get coverage.

But I guess government-funded or government-run health care is evil government-as-the-solution socialism, right? The way Medicare is socialism, and Social Security is socialism, and publicly funded education is socialism. Should we get rid of those because government sometimes screws up?

The majority in government and the majority of Corporate Big Wigs are about the same age. They were all taught "greed is good".."get it anyway you can." They've had shining examples over the past 8 years that this is all too true.

BTW, Stossell does get it..and he plays a great game of volley ball!!

I am with ya John!

Although I agree with some of the basic ideas, it is
in the details that make me worried. I fear that the
insurance lobbyist are already working with their
congressional and senate bedfellows right now, by
working out sweet deals in which the government
will take the most prone to sickness citizens and
they will take the cream of the crop, young healthy
clients. I don't trust either side. I know, lets all use
the insurance plan that our congressmen and
senators have!