March 23, 2011

59% of Americans oppose Obamacare, 37% support.

Same opposition level as a year ago. Support down 2%.

84 comments:

Lincolntf said...

Well done, Democrats. You actually came up with something less popular than Prohibition.

vbspurs said...

Eh.

Polls are to opinions, what gossip is to fact. Listen to them, but don't let them fool you into thinking they're the truth.

Cheers,
Victoria

kent said...

"MESSAGING!!!"

/leftards

edutcher said...

This surprises us, how?

It's a big, expensive ego trip to please Mommy the Commie and to break this country financially, and the more we hear of systems like it, Britain's NHS comes to mind (horror stories, vb?), the less anybody in their right mind wants it. It's only there to keep people hooked on the Democrat Party, particularly in light of the Demos' policies aimed at maintaining a permanent 10 - 15% (if not more) unemployment rate.

PS Thank God for Sarah Palin, who galvanized opposition to this mess.

TMink said...

Could President Obama be elected dog catcher outside of Chicago right now?

Trey

vbspurs said...

PS Thank God for Sarah Palin, who galvanized opposition to this mess.

Death panels. She was, is, and will always be right about that.

AJ Lynch said...

Garbage will soon pop in to say:

"It must be the message that needs work! The plan itself is wonderful".

traditionalguy said...

So what about the 105 Billion dollars just spent for the new mega-medical Bureaus and anonymous PANELS.

Comrade X said...

after watching the protests I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want their healthcare mixed with their government.

Coketown said...

Obamacare will be like President Truman. Much more popular after it dies and is buried than it will be while it's still kicking.

kent said...

after watching the protests I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want their healthcare mixed with their government.

Just imagine your local health care system being run by the sub-normal likes of, say, a Jim Shankman... or even the Noodles guy -- !!!

The_Ryan said...

So, 37% say it's "just liberal enough," but 50% combined say it's "just liberal enough" or "needs to be more liberal."

Q: What does the above mean?
A: CNN clearly skews numbers.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

This as Obama and the Dems race to cement this atrocity in place anyway they can.

Econophile said...

I'm a little surprised by this. Delighted, but surprised.

When asked "Do you think health care and education and puppies should be free?" (i.e. "Would you like someone else to pay for your stuff?") the visceral response is "Well, yeah!"

It takes a lot of seriousness and honesty to consider that before them is actually a warped and unnatural incentive structure that is sure to result in disaster.

So the idea that, despite the adolescent tendency to say yes to "free" things, people still don't fancy Obamacare is fantastic news.

Simon said...

Generally, I agree with Victoria's warning about the limits of polls. But in this case, we have a clear, sustained majority of opposition reflected in any number of polls. One thing is clear: Obamacare is unpopular. And for practical purposes, that suffices: The GOP can run on full repeal knowing that it will not be hurt (and may even be helped) by doing so. It also limits any political blowback from actually performing full repeal. All this is to the good; expurge it as soon as possible before it creates a dependent constituency.

Kathy said...

But Texas is working to pass their own version of it.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/texas-legislature/headlines/20110216-dewhurst-senate-propose-their-own-health-care-overhaul-for-texas.ece

Phil 3:14 said...

Interesting. After a year opinion is essentially the same (margin of error +/- 3 percentage points)

So even though the vast majority of Americans haven't "felt any change" with PPACA, their opinions remain the same. I hate to use an Obama administration line but I'm wondering if not for all of their messaging would it have been worse?

In the long run that's encouraging for the Administration. Of course there's one BIG problem before the long run:

2012

Rumpletweezer said...

This in spite of the pimping done by the mainstream press. Why, I'm officially non-plussed!

The Drill SGT said...

Liberals, you just keep telling yourselves that this will get better once....

I note that this was a phone poll to households, so it's not "Americans", just residents, and it's not registered voters or likely voters.

want to bet "likely voters" tilts against?

Chip S. said...

Here's an issue that splits the country in half, with strong feelings on either side, all thanks to federalizing a private choice about something fundamentally important and personal.

Well played, Pivenites.

Pogo said...

Too late. The planned rationing and shortages under Obamacare have already begun.

Medicare regulations from July 2010 are now in effect. They "bundle" payments for dialysis treatments, supplies, drugs and laboratory tests.

That is, the payments have been dramatically cut. Smaller facilities will likely go out of business.

Patients will be pushed from office hemodialysis (from the arm) to peritoneal dialysis (a belly bag at home). Many will not be offered dialysis at all.

This will accelerate in 2012 when even more restrictions arise.

Don't get kidney disease, is the best advice.

SteveR said...

Get a waiver

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

after watching the protests I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want their healthcare mixed with their government.

They don't. That's why unions like the SEIU are asking for exemptions. They only want the law to apply to you.

Chip S. said...

@Pogo, Thanks for the report from Reality.

It was always clear that "expanded coverage" and "lower costs" could only be attained through reduced care per patient. Let's hope this mess is reversible once people start seeing its inevitable consequences.

TMink said...

Yep. I am not accepting Medicaid for new patients. There are concerns in the health care community that if you take ANY medicaid patients the government will force you to take ALL of them. Thus cutting your income by up to 40%.

Trey

Scott M said...

Trey

What do you care? Michael Moore says your income and wealth are NATIONAL resources that belong to all of us.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

The stupidest thing I ever did was getting trained in Geriatrics.

Ha ha ha.

It's like becoming a hatmaker just before JFK was elected.

As the BeeGees sang, Oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.

Carol_Herman said...

Where's the downside? The law has been passed. Pelosi just thinks she has to wait around to 2012, and she moves back into the Speaker's office.

Even if her thinking is as foolish as her face, because the law has passed you're going to see enormous political fighting ahead.

Obama? He knew if he signed that law, he could both screw "white people" ... and, perhaps, be famous for watching his law take effect ... even if he were to lose office!

Most people who come here are not the Independents that Obama lost. And, he's now campaigning to get them back!

What if his chances are better, rather than worse?

Focus on what people do. Most of them are like Nixon said: The Silent Majority. When he won in 1968 he said his voters weren't the type to go out and yell.

At election time people pick. You're not picking up larger crowds, anymore than the protesters did in Madison's Capitol.

Chip S. said...

@TMink, No problem. Soon enough everyone will be in Medicare Ultra, so your choice will be to accept them or quit medicine.

PETER V. BELLA said...

Once again our government went against the will of the people for their own ends.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

"...your choice will be to accept them or quit medicine"

Or leave the country. Which will happen.

The ones that stay will go on strike tout de suite.

You thought the WI teachers were bad? Watch doctors and nurses become grasping and indignant. Like they did in other countries with nationalized healthcare.

I'm copying down sign ideas from the lefties in Madison for future reference.

Chip S. said...

Unlike public school teachers, striking doctors and nurses would be difficult to replace. No need for demonstrations when you can bring down the system by playing golf.

The noisy ones are the ones who fear (or know) that they're inessential.

Bruce Hayden said...

How does Pogo get to double post, while my response to his first post was eaten by Blogger? Not fair.

Chip S. said...

Pogo's posts are doubleplusgood.

Phil 3:14 said...

FYI

Primary Care docs in Great Britain earn more than PCP's in the US.

In a related note:

If under Obamacare:
1) docs get paid less
2) the program does nothing to reduce overal health care costs

then someone will be making more money.

Who?

vbspurs said...

Obamacare will be like President Truman. Much more popular after it dies and is buried than it will be while it's still kicking.

That makes Son of Crapulous into Jimmy Carter. WHAT WERE WE THINKING.

Chip S. said...

then someone will be making more money.

You forgot the other possibility: Quality goes down for a given level of expenditure.

Econophile said...

The noisy ones are the ones who fear (or know) that they're inessential.

Excellent point. I'm no Luddite, but I have a great deal sympathy for those whose professions are dying due to some larger progress in trade or technology. On the other hand, for those who have higher salaries only through some special political arrangement, I have none.

Bruce Hayden said...

One reason why the public isn't coming around is this from Obama’s funny numbers:

Last Friday, the Congressional Budget Office put out a report that showed just how badly the administration underestimated the deficit and the cost of ObamaCare. The CBO’s report, strangely unremarked upon by those liberals who defend the CBO’s utterances as sacred text, revealed:

Compared with the Administration’s estimates, CBO’s estimates of the deficit under the President’s budget are lower for 2011 (by $220 billion) but higher for each year thereafter (by a total of $2.3 trillion over the 2012–2021 period). That disparity stems from differences in the underlying projections of what would happen under current law ($1.3 trillion) as well as from differing assessments of the effects of the President’s proposals ($1.0 trillion).

Revenant said...

Opposition will go up once more of the law starts to kick in.

Bruce Hayden said...

If under Obamacare:
1) docs get paid less
2) the program does nothing to reduce overal health care costs

then someone will be making more money
.

Well, there is and will be even more a bigger bureaucracy.

But part of what is going on is that more health care, or probably more accurately, less health care to more people, will be provided more inefficiently. And the doctors are some of those who will take the brunt of this, being expected to work for less to accomplish this.

dbp said...

Is it time for a new book called, What's The Matter With The United States?

Phil 3:14 said...

Chip;
then someone will be making more money.

You forgot the other possibility: Quality goes down for a given level of expenditure.


I don't follow you. Less money may or may not mean lower quality but it doesn't change the bottom line. Whether quality changes in either direction doesn't change the economic question I asked.

JohnJ said...

"Could President Obama be elected dog catcher outside of Chicago right now?"

Easy question.

The answer is "yes."

After the national group hug of 2008, why would anyone believe that Obama's performance as president will be the major consideration for voters in 2012?

Phil 3:14 said...

Bruce;
But part of what is going on is that more health care, or probably more accurately, less health care to more people, will be provided more inefficiently. And the doctors are some of those who will take the brunt of this, being expected to work for less to accomplish this.

While I can certainly see bureaucratic and admin costs going up, given that they're about 7% of total expenditures while hospital are 30+% and docs about 26% its going to be helluva a lot more overhead to make a sizeable dent in hospital and doctor reimbursement(and I'm not saying that's not possible)

Scott M said...

After the national group hug of 2008, why would anyone believe that Obama's performance as president will be the major consideration for voters in 2012?

Because a good deal of those people, whether they openly admit it now or not, have Hugger Remorse.

MadisonMan said...

Pogo, my favorite signs remain the Stop the Imperial Walker signs -- not sure how that'll translate for Doctors.

Scott M said...

Pogo, my favorite signs remain the Stop the Imperial Walker signs

The "Imperial March" music plays as my wife's ringtone whenever she calls my mobile. My friends and co-workers think it's endlessly hilarious. My wife...not so much, but, then, she's never around when she calls.

Hagar said...

Obamacare actually is more radical than Britain's NHS, since Britain left a private insurance and medical care system functioning outside the NHS. Since Obamacare effectively nationalizes the medical insurance system, we will not have any such lifeline.

And, the hubbub so far has been mainly just about the main features of Obamacare, perhaps 200 pages worth, and I think the real problems will surface from the other 2500 pages.

Have you seen Glenn Beck's show illustrating the number of new Federal offices and agencies established by this bill?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

LOL, and that tool Axelrod said that we would see Obamacare become more popular as time passed.

Sure.

This is something somebody says that think they know what's best for you.

AJ Lynch said...

DBP:

When you google "douchnozzle", Thomas Franks' name and picture should show up 1st.

Chip S. said...

Phil,

The point is that "cost" only makes sense in terms of expenditure per unit of delivered service. You could cut expenditures by, say, limiting what is paid to doctors. In turn, the doctors will cut back on hours worked. So dollars spent could go down, but the quality of care would go down as well--and almost certainly by more than the decline in spending.

Thus, "lower quality for a given level of spending." The ultimate fallacy behind the health-care-reform impulse is the notion that spending = cost.

murgatroyd666 said...

The fact that it's unpopular simply shows that the vanguard party needs to take charge of affairs and lead the people where they aren't smart enough to want to go. When the masses suffer from false consciousness, it is necessary for their betters to run their lives for them, for their own good.

And yes, there are people who think like this, even if they don't say it out loud.

Hagar said...

Democrats of whatever kind all seem to have this in common: They are constitutionally unable to distinguish between productive and overhead costs.
Hiring a couple of hundred thousand people to administer this nightmare will provide "jobs" all right, but they are all overhead and no useful production. In fact they will cut into production, since each of these hires will be busily creating nuisance work that will take up the time of other people that otherwise would be working at useful jobs.

Jason (the commenter) said...

We'll like it when we repeal it!

Phil 3:14 said...

Chip;
The point is that "cost" only makes sense in terms of expenditure per unit of delivered service. You could cut expenditures by, say, limiting what is paid to doctors. In turn, the doctors will cut back on hours worked. So dollars spent could go down, but the quality of care would go down as well--and almost certainly by more than the decline in spending.

Thus, "lower quality for a given level of spending." The ultimate fallacy behind the health-care-reform impulse is the notion that spending = cost.


I'm still a little confused about what your getting at. I'd only point out that the next higher health care spending capita country is Switzerland. It spends about 30% less per person than the US and you cannot discern a qualitative difference. That is true for UK, France, Canada, Germany and several others and their per capital spending is even lower. I short we in the US spend far more for the same (if not in some ways slightly worse) outcomes.

Simon said...

We have to repeal the bill so you can find out what was in it.

vbspurs said...

The "Imperial March" music plays as my wife's ringtone whenever she calls my mobile.

Oh, Scott, I assigned that Star Wars tune to an acquaintance who is a pain in the neck and calls just to irritate me. Here's hoping that's not the case with yer wife!

Chip S. said...

Phil,

A careful look at the relevant data--by which I mean survival rates for just about any disease you can think of--will show that the US has the best health-care system. This debate has gone on for so long that I thought anyone who cared would already know this stuff.

Since you mention Switzerland, I bothered to dig up some basic data for you. You can find 5-year survival rates for cancers of all types, by country,here, courtesy of the American Cancer Society.

Among cancers of all types, the 5-year survival rate in the US is 65.9, compared to 55.0 in Switzerland. This is not a case where the average is misleading: of the 24 different cancers for which the ACS lists data, the 5-year survival rate in the US is higher than in Switzerland for 21 of them. In the three instances where the US rate was below Switzerland's, the differences were 0.1 (leukemia), 0.2 (larynx), and 1.3 (stomach) percentage points.

In some instances, the differences are astonishing. Consider the situations of two men with prostate cancer, one in the US and one in Switzerland. The man in the US has a 99.1 percent chance of surviving 5 years, while his Swiss counterpart's chance is 82.3.

We are not talking about a country that is technologically backward when we discuss Switzerland. The difference between us and them is pretty much nothing other than health-care policy.

So, good for them if they want to save money and have lower odds of survival if they get sick. I guess that's a Swiss thing.

I'm not Swiss.

Jay said...

I short we in the US spend far more for the same (if not in some ways slightly worse) outcomes.

Actually we don't.

Due to excessive regulation, subsidies, and outright funding of massive government programs, the "cost curve" is distorted.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

Milena said...

How many of that 37% in support have or think they have the pull to get a waiver? Certainly Weiner is in that 37% and he is jonesing for a waiver from the O-man.

Matt said...

Yeah but it is not Obamacare. It is Senate Democrats 2010 care. The jury is still out on the bill. That is the truth.

What I do know is the insurance companies love the bill because it ultimately means more business for them. Which is something I would think most conservatives would support.

Matt said...

Chip S.

The US health care system is indeed a great one but only for those who can afford it. I know people all over the world in many countries and no matter what statistics you throw us the bottom line is all of them [my friends anyway] have no complaints about their health care system. While here in the US most of my friends have plenty of complaints. But note the complaint is not that we have bad doctors or bad medicine. The complaint is cost. We can do better. We really can.

If you have a plan that can bring down cost then let's hear it. The middle class [not to mention the working class get pummeled by these costs].

And note too that the life expectancy in the US is 50th or so. That's not something to crow about. Switzerland is 10th.

Chip S. said...

Well, Matt, I guess we travel in different circles. My Canadian friends laugh at Americans who hold that system up as something to be emulated. The Canadian system
doesn't even do as well by its poor people
as the US system does.

You seem to think it is self-evident that "we spend too much on health care." Well, what's the right amount? I've already presented data that demonstrate the clear superiority of US health care to the rest of the world, including wonderful Switzerland. Are you saying that too high a proportion of our population survives cancer? What would you have us spend our money on instead of better health care? We already eat too much, drink too much, buy cars that are too big, and own too many flat-screen TVs, don't we? What, exactly, do you want us to spend our money on if not better health? High-speed rail lines through rural California?

Here's the bottom line: The US has the most relatively privatized health-care system I'm aware of in the world, and it happens to work extremely well. You think, on the basis of no particular evidence, that it will perform even better once the federal government is done regulating it in undetermined ways (most of which are at the discretion of the Sec. of HHS). Why do you not think that the "precautionary principle" routinely invoked in the climate-change debate has no bearing on the health-care change debate?

And please don't bother trotting out life-expectancy statistics that are not conditional on treatable illnesses--unless you're trying to argue that Obamacare is going to give us all better genes, better driving skills, and a lower tendency toward homicide.

William said...

Well Obamacare has only been in effect for one year and already our life expectancy surpasses that of Japan. (Too soon?)

Jeremy said...

Most Americans don't even know what the health reform bill is...and this seems to be a rather important part of the poll: "...but some of the opposition is from Americans who think the law is not liberal enough..."

Regardless, they they evidently do know this:

More Americans would prefer to see Barack Obama re-elected than would prefer a Republican to win in 2012, according to a new poll released today by the Pew Research Center.

In total, 48 percent of respondents said they would rather see Obama re-elected, while 35 percent said they would prefer a Republican and 16 percent didn't know. Among registered voters, 47 percent favored Obama and 37 percent preferred a Republican.

Revenant said...

Most Americans don't even know what the health reform bill is

That's a pretty sad excuse for lefties to be making after a full year of touting the bill's supposed advantages.

...and this seems to be a rather important part of the poll: "...but some of the opposition is from Americans who think the law is not liberal enough..."

Both people who want a free market and people who want socialized medicine can agree that "government funneling zillions of dollars to private insurance companies" was a moronic way to "reform" the health care system. Both groups can agree that ObamaCare is, in fact, worse than nothing at all.

Fen said...

Jeremy: Regardless, they they evidently do know this: More Americans would prefer to see Barack Obama re-elected than would prefer a Republican to win in 2012

*yawn*

1) Poll was registered voters, not likely voters.

2) Democrats were oversampled by 10%

3) and my fav disqualifier: Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home

LOL. What a waste of time and money that poll was. Would have been easier for you to just pick a number you liked.

BTW, if you're going to spam every thread with this talking point, at least throw up the link so others can check out the poll for themselves. Although I've already shown why your were hiding it - your poll is bunk.

kent said...

ME: "MESSAGING!!!"
/leftards


LEFTARD: Most Americans don't even know what the health reform bill is...

Heh. "No, no, kind audience... do not applaud me, I beg you. I am but a humble vessel, in the service of a far greater power..."

Willy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Willy said...

Oh my God. Is this being taken as news and important by the glorious bombshell Ann Althouse?

I hope someone already posted the real breakdown of this story. But I'll do it anyway for the right wingers and country bumpkins who may be taken in by Althouse as if she's some kind of authority.

The real important fact missing in the title of Althouse's posting of this story is that of the 59% who are against health care reform (not "Obamacare" as Althouse joins the jingoistic right), 13% of the 59% are against it because the health care reform doesn't go far enough.

What does that mean? It means 50% support the current reforms or want it to go farther. And 43% are against it because it's "too liberal."

Queen Ann gets it wrong again.

Wait for her next post where she declares Republican Governors are getting more popular with their anti-health care, anti-education, anti-gay rights, anti-reproductive rights, etc. agenda.

sarge said...

"PS Thank God for Sarah Palin"

yar sarge here hell yeah thank god fer sarah palin sarges prodeegus pole stands at attention as sarge considers rollin about the igloo in the seal muktuk salmon blood moose guts an whathaveyou wiv this palin lass who then while sarge slept it off ina stupor beat the sarge about the head and shoulders wiv her large ring of keys several of which wud be sure to fit a 1979 cutlass supreme wiv fuzzy dice on yon mirror and a bad ass gurls ride baddass boys sticker on the bumper now what she wud have playin on the 8 track is anyones guess an sarge gives er a big ol hoooozzzza

kent said...

yar sarge here hell yeah thank god fer sarah palin sarges prodeegus pole [SNIP]

So... that's glossolalia, then.

Huh.

AllenS said...

Why is health care in this country so expensive? Probably because hospitals are forced to hire people like Michelle obama.

Get rid of this number of minorities hired counting, and things will naturally get better for not only hospitals, but American industry as a whole.

Simon said...

Willy said...
"The real important fact missing in the title of Althouse's posting of this story is that of the 59% who are against health care reform (not "Obamacare" as Althouse joins the jingoistic right), 13% of the 59% are against it because the health care reform doesn't go far enough. What does that mean? "

It means that in order to claim that the title is wrong, you're willing to resort to manipulation, substituting "health care reform" for "Obamacare." The headline is precisely correct; that 13% support HCR while opposing Obamacare as a specific implementation of it is a distinction worth making, but not an error.

Fen said...

Libtard: I hope someone already posted the real breakdown of this story. But I'll do it anyway for the right wingers and country bumpkins who may be taken in by Althouse as if she's some kind of authority.

Hey Genius, Rev already addressed your point upthread. Learn to fricken read before calling us bumpkins:

Rev said: Both people who want a free market and people who want socialized medicine can agree that "government funneling zillions of dollars to private insurance companies" was a moronic way to "reform" the health care system. Both groups can agree that ObamaCare is, in fact, worse than nothing at all.

Robert said...

I wonder how many people oppose it because it is woefully short of what we need--single payer, national health insurance--or because they believe that it contains provisions for mythical "death panels," that it removes or limits insurance that people already have, and other such propaganda and lies that misrepresent what it actually is?

Robert said...

I see "Willy" already beat me to the punch with the point I was making.

kent said...

I see "Willy" already beat me to the punch with the point I was making.

Socks typically do come in pairs.

Revenant said...

I see "Willy" already beat me to the punch with the point I was making.

Which makes you the second person to ask that particular question after it had already been answered.

Robert said...

"Which makes you the second person to ask that particular question after it had already been answered."

Well, heck, do you expect someone to have to read through all the nonsense posted by the nincompoops who comprise the regulars here before adding a comment?

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com