Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) pronounces the death of Democratic health reform in an op-ed published this morning in The Washington Post: "Washington is the only place in the country that doesn't realize that this debate is over," he writes, after calling Dems' plans "passe" and proclaiming that "[t]he people don't want it. Believe the polls, the town halls, the voters."
Jindal may or may not be right about the ultimate fate of Democrats' broader plans, but, not to beat a dead horse, the polling doesn't say Americans oppose Democratic reforms. At best, we can say it's a mixed picture. Of the most recent, reliable, non-partisan major polls--a Sept. 12 Washington Post/ABC survey, an Economist/YouGov survey released Sept. 15, and a Sept. 25 NY Times/CBS poll--only the first shows Americans opposed to Democratic plans (48 percent to 52 percent); the other two show Americans in favor, though NY Times/CBS found that 46 percent say they don't know enough to decide.
A more crucial statistic for Jindal and his party, however, is that Americans think
Obama has better ideas on health care than Republicans in Congress: the
NY Times/CBS poll showed
Obama beating congressional Republicans 52-27 on that question, which
probably means the Democratic Party's "Party of No" attack on the GOP
is sticking. The thesis of Jindal's op-ed is that Republicans should
"join the battle of ideas" and offer some pragmatic solutions that
Democrats could vote for (but not a thousand-page bill of their
own--something Democrats have been hammering them for choosing not to produce). If Democratic health care reform fails, it could be a pyrrhic
victory for the GOP, without anything to boost its own standing and
credibility on the issue--and that's a scenario Jindal seems,
politically at least, to be in tune with.
UPDATE: Mickey Kaus busts me up for missing two Economist/YouGov polls that came out since the Sept. 15 one, both of which report Americans opposing health care reform 51-49. But I still stand by the original claim. Those figures are well within the polls' margins of error, which are +/- 4/7 percentage points and +/- 5 percentage points. So, despite Kaus being right, I'd still say it's a mixed bag.
At least if Jindal's right and it fails, we now know of hundreds of billions in Medicare Waste, Fraud and Abuse. Obama will, no doubt, quickly pounce on this, and put the money towards deficit reduction. I can't wait!
Quite right, I think a lot of people are starting to come to the realization that when Obama says he can cut (or rather reduce the rate of growth of spending by) about $500 billion from Medicare that either (a) he’s actually talking about cutting services rather than just “waste, fraud and abuse” or (b) the number was invented so that he could claim his health care plan was “deficit neutral” without any real plan on how to achieve it or (c) probably a little bit of both.
Hey Chris,
Overall this a decent post - however, a more helpful one to your readers would be to substantively evaluate the merit of Jindal's 10 "ideas." He prefaces them by noting that many of these ideas are already encapsulated in the five committee bills - but which ideas? Which bills? Which of the 10 ideas would have the most impact on coverage? On cost? He never says.
If many of the ideas are already included, why is he against the current reform effort? If 6/10 ideas were included could he vote for it? 7/10? 8/10? Where does his bipartisanship begin and end?
Ezra Klein reported that 9 of the 10 ideas are currently incorporated in the bills.
Saw that. I see he's expanding on it tomorrow. Good.
To Duder and Thorley, I suggest you ask former Senate Leader Bill Frist and Bob Dole who said they would vote for the current bill in the form it is...so who is really playing politics?
I suggest you go back and check your sources since Bill First is saying that he said no such thing and there doesn’t appear to be anything from Bob Dole saying that he would vote for “current bill in the form it is.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/frist-backing-health-care-bill-not-so-fast.html
It appears that Bill Frist and Bod Dole’s supposed support for “the current bill (whichever one that is) in the form it is” is turning out to be like Obama’s earlier claim that the AARP endorsed his plan.
You know, made up.
Sorry, but I don't actually see Bill Frist backtracking there. He only specifies that he wouldn't support the Baucus version of HCR-bill. You know, the one without a public option. Of the other four versions, he only intimates they aren't perfect according to his views.
In his interview with KT, he said the arguments against the public plan were overblown, clearly intimating he isn't against it.
That article is pure spin: it doesn't refute anything he said to Karen Tumulty.
Obama should drop the emphasis on health care for now. Let the Senate work through the Baucus bill and the amendments. Personally, I wish they would drop the Baucus bill and start over (with the Wyden-Bennett bill), but maybe they're trying to let Baucus save face.
Then, the Democrats should focus on jobs and the economy, like they should have been doing all along. They are apparently going to let the GOP steal a traditionally Democratic issue from them - strange!
Because the current health care issues have nothing at all to do with jobs and the economy? Health care is a significant part - and that's part, not whole - of the reason for our current economic issues. They have been focusing on the economy all along. And if you've noticed, they've been met with opposition every step of the way. Socialism, fascism, communism, blah blah. And what solutions do the opposition propose? Free markets/anti-government, deregulation, tax cuts (capital gains) and the same old crap that got us where we are today.
I do believe in free markets and capitalism, and they work fabulously 'on paper'. The problem is that in practice, profit motive is overrun by greed and an 'every man for himself' mentality. "Work hard and earn" is a good ethic on the merits, but are you going to tell me that your average CEO, financial adviser, etc. works harder than your average teacher, factory worker, oil worker, nurse, sales clerk, etc.?
P.S. Many on Jindal's list of 10 sound very similar to what the Wyden-Bennett bill proposes. The solution for health care reform is not a public option, but more competition in the private sector. Wyden-Bennett would accomplish this.
This is BS. You do not run politics on 'poll numbers'.
Elections have consequences.
Jindal is not on side line to undertake 'meta-narrative' like an arm chair pundit. If he things Dem reforms are bad, go start contesting election on that.
If he thinks there is still time to avert the so called health reform failure; keep on putting pressure on Congress by more Tea Parties, keep on formulating alternative ideas and keep on telling negative consequences of what happens if we do it now.
Let him be in the 'shoes' of those who knowing the looming disaster of Iraq war had to keep on fight the Bush Rove politics.
He is not some kind of 'supreme leader or judge' in this country to pass such judgment and say debate is over?
WTF - who the hell is he? Does he think himself King George or what? Get off the little peddle Governor and mind your state business.
Jindal the Swindle has no credibility on these issues. We are talking about the man who tried to refuse stimulus money that his state needed. We are talking about Jindal, who simply does not care about reality, so long as he can bleat out the witless GOP talking-point of the day.
Don't forget that the idiot is now going around Louisiana dolling out the stimulus money he criticized.
Wondering if Mr. Good might wish to incorporate some corrections, suggested by Mickey Kaus, in this post. Or is Sept. 15 some magic date?
Jeebus, Chris Good is allegedly a "Politics" editor at the Atlantic? Really?
As Kaus points out, Pollster.com has a listing of the recently released polls on approval of the health care plan. Chris Good apparently missed the following polls, all of which were released following the 9/12 ABC/WaPo poll cited by Chris Good:
Rasmussen 10/2-3/09 (46% favor - 50% oppose)
FOX 9/29-30/09 (33 - 53)
YouGov/Polimetrix 9/27-29/09 (49 - 51)
Rasmussen 9/24-25/09 (41 - 56)
YouGov/Polimetrix 9/20-22/09 (49 - 51)
PPP (D) 9/21/09 (45 - 46)
NBC/WSJ 9/17-20/09 (39 - 41)
Rasmussen 9/16-17/09 (43 - 56)
FOX 9/15-16/09 (38 - 48)
Pew 9/10-15/09 (42 - 44)
Harris (internet) 9/8-15/09 (49 - 41)
Bloomberg 9/10-14/09 (48 - 42)
Rasmussen 9/12-13/09 (51 - 46)
CNN 9/11-13/09 (51 - 46)
That's 14 polls that Chris Good missed. Shouldn't a "Politics" editor know how to consult, say, Pollster.com to get information about what polls have been released lately on a topic like health care? I mean, it isn't that difficult - Pollster.com is even conveniently referenced right on the sidebar to this page?
This is why I would never consult The Atlantic for serious political analysis.
For me, the fundamental objections are being ignored...
1) Whereas with the public mandate on taxation requires us to pay the federal government, the mandatory aspect of this legislation forces us to pay private corporations (i.e. private individuals). All insurance companies can shut down their marketing departments while the federal government enforces collection of their wealth. That is unheard of for a free nation. They will get the best of both worlds. Communism, everyone pays into a big pool and it is doled out to individuals on an 'as needed' basis, and capitalism, paid to a private group to invest in the stock market etc. to make themselves wealthy. Its astounding to me no one is raising this fundamental issue in the debate.
2) Whereas before, the objection to perceived risky behavior, like homosexuality (AIDS), smoking (cigarettes, marijuana), drinking (liver disease) etc. was a moral issue, now anyone can claim that these behaviors are hurting their pocketbook...that is, they can write their congressman and enact laws to protect their wealth because these awful people engaging in these 'risky' behaviors are raising their health care premiums. The arguments will no longer be moral arguments, they will be more grounded and basic arguments about cost/money etc. i.e. Better arguments. You will not be able to get around your fellow citizens objections to how you live your life! No one who we have heard form in the last few years, arguing against lifestyles and behaviors they object to, will bother to argue morality as a basis anymore. The new ready made and even SOLID argument will be purely financial.
3) When did health care insurance companies become synonymous with the health care industry. When the directive was stated as 'fixing the health care system', we were (are) all for it. The health care system is, cost-wise, out of control. Let's fix it. But feeding the insurance industry, as one 'fixes' a junkie with more heroine is what this legislation does. Any doctor will tell you his services cost so much because of his malpractice insurance. INSURANCE! Insurance companies are the CAUSE of what we want to fix. The get paid by the doctor, they get paid by the doctors patients, and now they will have all the money they could possibly want (literally...every citizen by MANDATE!). How is this fixing anything? It is PRESERVING the problem, guaranteeing that it will not change.
The financial cost of this legislation is not the central issue to me, it is the cost in freedom.