39 Democrats voted against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) health care reform package last Saturday, and conventional wisdom says this was a good move, campaign-wise. These lawmakers represent conservative districts--31 of 39 of which backed McCain in 2008--and the Democratic health care reform (whatever that may be, exactly) is opposed, on average, by most Americans--even though some reputable polls have shown strong, some would say overwhelming, support for the public option.
It stands to reason that, in the most conservative districts held by Democrats, voters are at least as cool on reform.
Democratic polling, however, says this isn't the case, and, while partisan-commissioned polling should always be looked at with a suspect eye, that doesn't mean it isn't worth looking at.
The Republican side isn't releasing its polling, but it hints that health reform is unpopular in its target districts.
"If health care is so popular, why are Democrats falling over each other to see who can oppose it?" a Republican campaign aide said, when asked.
A good point.
But the polling the left has done--and it's really all we have to go on, for a narrowed look at Democratic swing districts--says the opposite is true.
According to a poll conducted in September by Anzalone Liszt Research for the liberal interest-group coalition Health Care for America Now!, residents of districts held by Blue Dog Democrats say major health care reforms are necessary by a margin of 57-41.
When the Democratic plan is described, they support it 50-43. Polls commissioned by interested parties tend to yield favorable results for whoever is paying for the survey, and the phenomenon usually arises from the wording of the questions. So here's how Anzalone Liszt's pollsters described the Democratic health plan--you can judge for yourself:
Let me give you a little more information about the health insurance reform plan in Congress, and get your reactionAnd here's the methodology:
Under the plan, insurance companies would be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and couldn't charge more or cancel if you get sick. People could keep their existing insurance, but if they aren't covered at work they could choose between private insurance plans and a new public health insurance option. Everyone would be required to have health insurance, and families of four making less than eighty-eight thousand dollars would receive a discount. Small businesses would receive tax credits to help them provide coverage, and large companies would be required to either provide health insurance, or pay a tax to help employees buy their own coverage. The plan would be paid for with cost savings in the healthcare system, and higher taxes on households making over three hundred fifty thousand dollars a year.
Anzalone Liszt Research conducted 1200 live telephone interviews with likely 2010 voters in 91 Blue Dog/Frontline/Rural Caucus House Districts between September 11-17, 2009. Respondents were selected at random, with interviews apportioned geographically based on past voter turnout. Expected margin of error for these results is ±2.8% with a 95% confidence level.A poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlian Rosner for Democratic polling, research, and strategy firm Democracy Corps October 6-11, meanwhile, shows voters in the 20 most vulnerable Democratic seats think Republicans are doing a "better job" on health care, 46-42.
But in the 20 next-most vulnerable seats, the "tier 2" Democratic targets, voters said Democrats are doing a better job than Republicans on health care, by a margin of 47-40--a pretty solid preference for Democrats.
The "tier1" and "tier 2" districts are listed at the end of this memo. They're not to be confused with the current flights of targets as listed by the National Republican Congressional Committee, whose tier 1, 2, and 3 targets are somewhat fluid.
Here are the crosstabs, confusing as they are ("total Dems better" means the total percentage in the tier 1 or 2 districts that said Democrats are doing a better job on health care). Greenberg polled a total of 2,000 likely voters across 55 Democratic-held and 20 Republican-held districts.
So is all this polling to be believed? I leave it up to the reader. The national polling on health care seems to speak for itself, as do conventional wisdom and the GOP take. But it's interesting, and it throws into question just how voters will react if health reform passes with their representative supporting it.
I'm surprised the numbers aren't higher when asked if major health care reforms are necessary. Is there anyone left that thinks things are just great? On the other hand, I think a lot of that excerpt is misleading. To say that you can keep your current insurance is disingenuous when and exchange would require insurance to adhere to certain levels, meaning that many insurance plans would have to change in one way or another. It's be like saying you can keep your BMW, but we're putting a Volvo engine in it because we think it's safer (I used this particular analogy to try not to make value judgments, just to show that "keeping the same" doesn't mean it won't change). While it does address the mandates, it fails to mention the penalties associated with violating the mandates. And even if given the benefit of the doubt on whether or not the plan will be completely paid for, I imagine the fact that those making $350,000 or more are not a magically refilling money reservoir for the country, and taxes on them to pay for this health care bill may limit Congress' ability to increase taxes for other things, like paying down the deficit, education, etc.
You forgot one thing. Just because they voted against doesn't mean the Republicans are gonna give them a pass. The Blue Dogs are still going to be called Socialists and all that no matter what they do. So they might as well vote for it. But we know they won't because they are corporate whores.
So is all this polling to be believed? I leave it up to the reader.
"You f*cked up -- you trusted us."
Eric "Otter" Stratton, Delta House
The real problem with all this is that polling on public opinion on health care really isn't very trustworthy except to conclude that public opinion is muddled and open to persuasion.
Average voters have no idea what's in the legislative proposals, which vary drastically and keep changing. In all these months we've had as many as five distinct bills and now still have three. Only coming out of conference will we be down to one. So people have no idea if they're really "for" or "against" the various proposals, they have nothing more than very broad impressions of what's happening. When they say they're "for" or "against" "Obama's health care proposal" or using other phrasing to describe the Democratic effort, they're not speaking to anything actually in the bill, they're speaking to vague notions of what's going on. They're highly susceptible to dishonest spin and fair characterizations alike, basedon what they see in competing TV ads and various news reports. And they don't share the same assumptions about what they're "for" or "against."
The same goes for polling specifically on "the public option." I think it was a Pew poll that smartly revealed that most people don't know what "the public option" is. So a poll showing some ridiculously high percentage being either "for" or "against" it, with very few saying "no opinion" or "not sure," is necessarily distorted.
Ultimately Congressmen and Senators have to look outside polling to gauge public opinion on various legislative items. No one can prove cost containment, so they've got the CBO and maybe other studies to make their case. And of course they can safely assume coverage expansions will be popular and tax hikes in whatever forms will be unpopular. And trying to balance everything to get a bill that's good policy or at least not clearly bad policy, and also sell it politically, is really more art than science. That's why everyone on the Hill is struggling so badly with this, because trying to predict what will work and be politically safe is so hard to deduce. And any smart observer should recognize that the polling out there doesn't really help at all.
Clinton is right that simply upon a bill being signed by Obama, the reform's popularity, and Obama's and his party's with it, will see a bounce. It's a given that every Congressional Democrat's political concerns will be accommodated in some way, as the nature and approach of this whole process ensures that. But that process also ensures that everything looks ugly along the way, and THAT is what's hurting Democrats currently in public opinion. Most Americans don't have a sophisticated enough perspective to recognize we're a country of radically diverse opinions and self-interests; too many think their own point of view is somehow dominant and/or superior, and others' points of view represent only a minority or are otherwise stupid. And that self-absorbed perspective means they can't see that coming together on legislative agreement on something as complex as health care reform CAN'T be neat and tidy.
The one thing that "healthcare reform" certainly does NOT do is offer "choice"! Quite the contrary. This was made abundantly clear this past Friday in an Op-Ed that appeared Friday, December 13, 2009 in The Wall Street Journal by Andrew Heinze, a registered Democrat from New York. Following are a few words from that article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527493169603118.html
"I'm a registered Democrat living in New York City, and I buy my own health insurance. But now, having seen the health-care reform bill that passed the House, I'm preparing for life without health insurance. And unless I'm the only person covered under the Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield "Tradition Plus" plan, a lot of other people will end up just like me, uninsured.
I will gain one thing, though—an annual fine for losing my insurance. The exact amount of that fine isn't clear yet, but so far it looks like I'll be paying about the same amount—$2,000 a year—for having no insurance as I do now for having it."
Mr. Heinze goes on to describe the fact that, today, his minimum cost for a comprehensive major medical plan is $13,000 per year. His cost on a plan that just covers hospital stays is $2,000 per year. Therefore, he chose the less expensive option. He correctly points out that the $11,000 difference would pay for A LOT of doctor visits should that become necessary. Today Mr. Heinze has a CHOICE between these two alternatives. Under the provisions of the healthcare bill passed in The House of Representatives on Saturday, November 7, that CHOICE will NO LONGER EXIST!!!
The irony here is ultra liberal Democrats want to ensure "choice" for abortion in a bill that, in every other respect, takes away freedom of choice from individuals and transfers that choice to the federal government.
Healthcare reform is something that needs to be done correctly. Another irony is the fact that President Obama wants us to rush into this very important decision while, at the same time, the General that The President personally chose to run the war in Afganistan has asked for more troops MONTHS AGO, but when it comes to that decision it's quite a different story. No rush there according to Obama! The White House says they need to take the time to get it RIGHT! Go figure!!!
Given the fact that a recent poll indicates the vast majority of Americans believe that JOBS should be the number 1 priorty for the administration in Washington while only 17% believe that to be the case on the subject of healthcare reform, it appears to me that both Martha Coakley and President Obama have their priorities, shall we say, BASS ACKWARDS!!!
For the record, I am also a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT!