Campaign 2008 Redux? Obama Calls for Democrats to Unify on Health Care Reform

anything other than a public option, leaves control of our health decisions to the insurance co.s period..they do not make decisions based on the best interest of the patient(ie..all you overweight or underweight children and adults shall be excluded from health care benifits...how are you liking that??? They only want to insure the least likely to get ill...some people need to smarten up..

It would be interesting to see Jake Tapper ask the White House if Reeducation Camps for Fox News Employees will be covered under the Administrations Health Care Plan.

Alyson:"His view is pretty much the same as mine. I want a structure in place that is flexible enough to easily allow for a movement toward single payer if the public shifts in that direction. It's the smartest move-- ..."

Well, well. I can always count on Alyson to tell the truth. It takes a while to get there sometimes but when left with no choice, eventually you'll come out with it.

Let's get greedy. Can you honestly state in your heart of hearts that the White House and Congress have framed the debate as you have so eloquently put it? I can't recall anyone in a position of power stand on the floor of the House or Senate or the WH Press Room saying the public option is the first step to single payer. Or that single payer is the best, smartest system out there, etc. Because if this is what Obama, Pelosi and Reid believe then they haven't exactly been honest with the American public.

I'm sure you'll say his position has evolved or something like that even though there's no evidence to support such a notion.

Posted by: Woody | Oct 21, 2009 7:25:01 PM

I'd say he's flexible as I know Republicans and such are averse to the possibility of evolution, lol. His view is pretty much the same as mine. I want a structure in place that is flexible enough to easily allow for a movement toward single payer if the public shifts in that direction. It's the smartest move-- particularly if that same structure would also allow for universal coverage with pooling across state lines through a national exchange more like the Swiss system with coverage untied from employement and portable if the public shifted in that direction. It's the most efficient way to go.

Alyson:"You're too funny. Facts? "It's clear a public option is a precursor to single payer" is NOT a fact.

=========

No, that's an opinion based on the FACTS I presented. You're being coy at best, disingenuous at worst. Here's another fact:

Washington Post, August 19, 2008 covering Obama on the campaign trail in Albuquerque, NM:

Barack Obama said he would consider embracing a single-payer health-care system, beloved by liberals, as his plan for broader coverage evolves over time.

Listen up. Single-payer health care might just work. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.

-- Again, there is no Trojan Horse involved. Obama has a plan to get us to single payer. He's patient. As he said in 2003, “But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out…”

Facts are stubborn things. I'm sure you'll say his position has evolved or something like that even though there's no evidence to support such a notion.

I presented facts...

It's clear a public option is a precursor to single payer.

***

You're too funny. Facts? "It's clear a public option is a precursor to single payer" is NOT a fact. It *could be* a precursor to single payer, and some would like it to be, yes, just like some Republicans would like to do away with Medicare, Social Security and SCHIP.If calling out your tired talking points is attacking the messenger, then count me in. You've parroted all the crazy stuff that's come from the right. You also tend to conflate single payer with government run health care-- and you cited Obama in 2008-- I need specifics on that because I believe it's either an error or a flat-out lie to make it sound as if that's been a recent stance. The last person on here to bring up this canard actually attributed Hacker's quote to Obama and said it was made during the campaign.

Alyson:"Meanwhile, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (CPR)has sent tea party organizations and other conservative groups including think tanks a memo urging them to join in a coordinated approach “to deliver a decisive ‘knock out’ punch” to health care reform legislation. Looks like some folks who comment here got the memo."

Posted by: Alyson | Oct 21, 2009 11:04:25 AM
=================
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. All I did was a little search on "single payer supporters Washington" and all this information comes pouring out. I noticed you didn't refute a single thing in my post regarding who supports single payer and also is on record stating a health reform bill with a public option would be a great first step. That's because it's irrefutable. I presented facts, you chose to attack the messenger. That's OK, I can take it. I'll repeat some of my post with the hope of returning the thread back to a health care discussion:

It's clear a public option is a precursor to single payer. The strategy is to promise "competition" in the free market when in reality a public option will eliminate private health insurance due to a lack of fair competition. No private insurer will be able to compete with government subsidized health care and the sponsors of a public option know it.

Here's a short list of people who are on record stating that a health care reform bill that includes a public option is just the first step to single payer:

President Obama (2003 and 2008)
Rep. Barney Frank
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
Former Sen. Tom Daschle
Sen. Russ Feingold
Sen. John Conyers
Sen. Bernie Sanders
"The Architect" Jacob Hacker
The 90+ cosponsors of H.R. 676

The most interesting and blatant one here is Jacob Hacker, the architect of so much of the legislation currently under consideration.

Hacker:“Someone once said to me, ‘Well, this is a Trojan horse for single payer.’ I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there! I’m telling you!’” Hacker said in a video which was filmed at a July 2008 forum sponsored by the liberal Tides Foundation.

“We’re going to get there (to a government-run system)–over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employment-based health insurance, as we should.

“But we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they’re going to lose their private insurance. We’re going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they’re in the pool, and we’re going to let them keep their private employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.”

Ernest,

I found an interview with Rasmussen at TPM where he discussed it with them. I see what you are trying to say after reading the interview.

===Notice the emphasis on total approval being the first thing mentioned even though its terrible at 32%===

I thought Ernest was arguing that Rasmussen didn't poll strongly disapprove when Bush was president, but I found it all over the internet where he did. The numbers he posted earlier included the "somewhat" he wanted, so I still don't know what the beef is. Rasmussen finished the 2008 elections off by very little. He is polling likely voters, the others aren't. I suspect that is why there is a difference.

Posted by: Axey | Oct 21, 2009 2:37:55 PM

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for the attention to detail. I should have said “Emphasized” instead of “used”. That is clear from the history and shows the bias I am referring to. However, ‘Total’ was “emphasized” back then for Bush, whereas ‘Strongly’ appears to be used solely now for Barack.

The following, using your figures for Bush and the recent Rasmussen data, illustrates the ‘Rasmussen GOP Bias’ then and now using the 4 answers; 1) Strongly Approve, 2) Somewhat Approve, 3) Somewhat Disapprove, 4) Strongly Disapprove. Index = Approve-Disapprove.

Bush

View / Somewhat / Strongly / Total

Approve / 19% / 13% / 32%

Disapprove / 18% / 47% / 65%

Index / 1% / -34% / -33%



Obama

View / Somewhat / Strongly / Total

Approve / 20% / 27% / 47%

Disapprove / 13% / 40% / 53%
I
ndex / 7% / -13% / -6%

As you can see Bush’s ‘Index’ was better (even though still very bad) by “Emphasizing” ‘Total’.

And, Barack’s ‘Index’ is significantly worse by “using” ‘Strongly’.

But the most interesting thing is what ‘Somewhat’ says because that is where the ‘swing vote’ is!

"Rasmussen finished the 2008 elections off by very little. He is polling likely voters, the others aren't."

Other polling firms were as close or closer.

Rasmussen consistently had a higher approval rate than other polling firms for Bush and has consistently had a lower approval rating for Obama.

Predicting likely voters 3 years out from an election is dubious.

Rasmussen is cooking the numbers.

"I actually thought that was a posting at DU, since it didn't link back to Rasmussen. I thought Ernest was arguing that Rasmussen didn't poll strongly disapprove when Bush was president"

He unveiled the index (subtracting strong approve from strong disapprov) this year. That is what I thought Ernest was referring too.

I discussed this when right winger began posting the index in Feb.

===Notice the emphasis on total approval being the first thing mentioned even though its terrible at 32%===

I actually thought that was a posting at DU, since it didn't link back to Rasmussen. I thought Ernest was arguing that Rasmussen didn't poll strongly disapprove when Bush was president, but I found it all over the internet where he did. The numbers he posted earlier included the "somewhat" he wanted, so I still don't know what the beef is. Rasmussen finished the 2008 elections off by very little. He is polling likely voters, the others aren't. I suspect that is why there is a difference.

What is the difference between how Rasmussen polled Bush and polls Obama? I am obviously missing something, but I don't know what."

Notice the emphasis on total approval being the first thing mentioned even though its terrible at 32%

Compare with Obama

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13. That’s just a point above the lowest level ever recorded for this President. It’s also the sixth straight day in negative double digits, matching the longest such streak"

You actually have to dig a little into the article to find Obama's total approval number.

Rasmussen is obvious in his framing.

He is a sleaze that references a bogus study to call himself the most accurate pollster.

Why is it that Rasmussen does not post ‘Somewhat Disapprove’ vs ‘Somewhat Approve’ ?

Is it because those percentages are diametrically opposed to the ‘Strongly Approve’ vs ‘Strongly Disapprove"

Exactly.

Rasmussen now emphasizes the strong appr vs strong disapprov because it frames the numbers for sale to right wing media.

With Bush, he led with standard approval disapproval always focusing on the total approval number.

===This is your proof? January of 2009? ===

Proof of what? I don't know what is different. I found this at DU in May 2008.

"For the week ending May 9, just 32% of Americans approved of the way the George W. Bush performed his role as President. That’s down two percentage points from last week and the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. The decline in the President’s ratings come as the Rasmussen Consumer Index also hovers around record lows—72% of Americans believe that economic conditions are getting worse.

Sixty-five percent (65%) disapprove of the President’s Performance, up two points from a week ago.

The weekly figures include 13% who Strongly Approve and 47% who Strongly Disapprove.

The weekly figures also represents a two-point decline from the numbers recorded during the full month of April. During that month, 34% of Americans gave the President their approval. That too was an all-time low, the lowest full-month approval rating ever for the President measured by Rasmussen Reports. For the full month, just 14% Strongly Approved of the President’s performance while 46% Strongly Disapproved"

What is the difference between how Rasmussen polled Bush and polls Obama? I am obviously missing something, but I don't know what.

"In the final full month of his Presidency, just 13% of American adults said they Strongly Approved of the way that George W. Bush performed his job as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapproved. That gives the President a -30 rating on the Presidential Approval Index""

This is your proof? January of 2009?

ROFLMAO!

How sad it is to recall that nine months ago this president's Approval Index was a +30; today it's a -13. A negative swing of 43 points from the days of hope, of "no red states, no blue states, just purple states."

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 21, 2009 11:19:48 AM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Rasmussen poll has four answers: ‘Strongly Approve’, ‘Somewhat Approve’, ‘Somewhat Disapprove’, and ‘Strongly Disapprove’.

Why is it that Rasmussen does not post ‘Somewhat Disapprove’ vs ‘Somewhat Approve’ ?

Is it because those percentages are diametrically opposed to the ‘Strongly Approve’ vs ‘Strongly Disapprove?

Why did Rasmussen use ‘Total Approve’ vs ‘Total Disapprove’ during the Bush administration, but now wants to use ‘Strongly Approve’ vs ‘Strongly Disapprove’ with Barack?

Is it because it made Bush look ‘Less Disapproved’ then and Barack ‘More Disapproved’now?
___________________________________

yes, same as FH ignores all of the other polls that show Obama with support in the mid-fifties.

it's called personal political bias

===Why did Rasmussen use ‘Total Approve’ vs ‘Total Disapprove’ during the Bush administration, ===

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I just checked the archives and Rasmussen had this about Bush...

"In the final full month of his Presidency, just 13% of American adults said they Strongly Approved of the way that George W. Bush performed his job as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapproved. That gives the President a -30 rating on the Presidential Approval Index"

It looks the same as the one for Obama today. What exactly are you referring to?

"So, why are you so fascinated by the Rasmussen poll?"

Because it tell him what he wants to hear.

Scott Rasmussen is making a fortune selling bogus statistics to the right wing.