Obama Gets Poor Marks on Healthcare
So ominously read a heading in a Gallup poll released Monday about America's opinion of pending healthcare reform legislation.
The news was not good for Democrats and the Obama administration hoping to pass something before the Christmas break.
Quite the contrary, despite all the efforts of press members to sway the public concerning this matter, Gallup found Americans not only growing less and less interested in this current bill, but also giving the President his lowest approval rating to date concerning his handling of this issue (h/t Ed Morrissey):
Americans currently tilt against Congress' passing healthcare legislation, with 49% saying they would advise their member to vote against a bill (or they lean that way) and 44% saying they would advocate a vote in favor of the bill (or lean toward advising a yes vote).
What is indeed interesting is the abrupt change from October when those in favor outnumbered the opposition by ten points. That's a staggering about-face in less than two months.
This should also be quite concerning to the Obama-loving press: "Independents oppose passage of a bill by 53% to 37%."
But here's the money quote that'll really give his media sycophants nightmares:
The poll also finds 40% of Americans approving of President Obama's handling of healthcare policy, while 53% disapprove. This is slightly more negative than what Gallup found from July through September, and represents his worst review to date on this issue...Independents are nearly twice as likely to disapprove (58%) as to approve (33%).
As polls have been finding in the past couple of months, Independents are moving away from Obama and the Democrats in droves.
In the end, if we had an honest media, the following conclusion would be echoed in our papers and our evening news programs:
Despite the considerable efforts of Congress and the president to pass health insurance reform, the public remains reluctant to endorse that goal.
Indeed.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If he really wanted to do
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 11:01 ET by rbosqueIf he really wanted to do something about healthcare, he can insist on tort reform, increased competition between providers across state lines, get rid of gov't mandates, stop insisting that we have a "right" to healthcare since it's not in the Bill of Rights. The government has NO Constitutional authority to get involved in medicine.
You have to remember
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 11:24 ET by CCsteelcitywho you're talking about.
A) has NO constitutional authority to take over banks.
B) has NO constitutional authority to take over big companies. (Ford, Chrysler, GM)
C) HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO BE PRESIDENT!!!
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
Have two
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 11:51 ET by 10ksnookerGallip fudge and AGW fruad cream on top. Will make you sick what is going on in the world.
Obama's first government
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:08 ET by wolfemanicObama's first government health care appointment is on 11/2/10.
He's scheduled for a Congressional enema.
Same old poll questions.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:10 ET by SideShowIt would be great to see the poll questions asked to have some punch like the following-
"If you just lost your job and your health insurance was cancelled would you be in favor of universal healthcare that took care of all your basic needs for you & your family?"
Or
"If you found out your health insurance will not cover your pre-existing condition, would you support healthcare reform so that you are covered?"
I wonder how the polls would look after those questions are posed.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
Here's poll question for you:
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:19 ET by SickofLibs"Where did you get the impression that Obamacare WILL BE FREE?"
You know, like after you lost your job. Oh yeah, and your answer cannot include 'unicorns' or 'rainbows'.
No free lunch except down at the soup line.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:33 ET by SideShowWe all pay in the end. That's a fact, jack.
Here's another poll question to pose-
"If your health insurance costs rose 15% per year and your benefits decreased the same amount, would you be in favor of some kind of regulation to slow the increase and maintain the same benefits?"
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
Thanks for admitting your Question #1 was meaningless
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:44 ET by SickofLibsNow for Question #2: source your premise that benefits decrease by the same amount premiums go up.
This will be sort of like the big essay/research question at the end that you can't BS your way out of.
The floor is yours.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:47 ET by SideShowI asked what would the poll numbers look like if these questions were posed. What do you think they would look like? For or against?
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
Deflection on Question #2 duly noted
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:29 ET by SickofLibsWho cares what a sneakily worded poll question would return?
In case you don't realize this, a lot of people think that Obamacare is going to be their free safety blanket, which it certainly will not be. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you already know this is not true.
In fact, it would be one of the most expensive health insurance plans you could buy. If you had a job and could afford the approx. $1,500/month, that is.
I see the FreakShow has returned
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:29 ET by BlondeWe need a better class of troll, here. ©
I hope he fails, too.
It's a discussion. Feel
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:35 ET by SideShowIt's a discussion. Feel free to add to it.
If you need to call me a name, by all means, have at it, if it makes you feel superior. I think you're special.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
I don't discuss non sequiturs with trolls
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:37 ET by BlondeParticularly not nasty little retread trolls like yourself.
I hope he fails, too.
No comment then?
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:44 ET by SideShowPlease forgo the name calling. Poll questions are retreads in themselves. Why not ask the real questions about health insurance and the unregulated out of control costs of trying to afford health insurance in this country? It's not a partisan issue. This affects everyone in this country. Whether you're liberal or conservative, democrat, independant, or republican, this is an issue to be addressed.
So, the discussion needs to take place. What are you afraid of?
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
Still reading impaired, I see
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:47 ET by BlondeTake your trolling elsewhere.
I'll call you anything I jolly well please, retread.
I hope he fails, too.
Still no comment.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:58 ET by SideShowJust a discussion.
Good try at trying to derail it.
I see you are at a loss of words except for the juvenile insults.
Carry on if it makes you feel better about yourself, by all means.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
Silly troll
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:15 ET by BlondeYou're late to the party. You come in here with a lamp on your head, drunk as a skunk, demanding I discuss with you something which has already beend discussed, in some detail I might add. With those great things we call links and cites. Rather than your made up idiotic poll questions.
Go read and ponder. Get back to me if you dare. Until you have anything substantial to add to "the debate", other than your lame liberal flaming talking points, I'm putting you on ignore, troll. By all means continue your whining, though. It is rather humorous.
You are dismissed.
I hope he fails, too.
Is there a vaccine in the works for this?
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:32 ET by SickofLibsI hope we don't have to wait until January or something.
Bye.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:32 ET by SideShowNow that she(?)'s gone, the discussion can continue if anyone would like to join in.
One thing I ask- Please refrain from name calling and assumed intelligence levels, I regard everyone on this site as an adult. With a number of posters having differing levels of education, I could careless whether you graduated from high school or law school. Everyone has an opinion whether it's an informed one or not. Maybe we can all learn something from one another or not.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
SS
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:19 ET by MrShyHere's where you might be a troll.... you don't want a "discussion".
It's been revealed in so many of your posts.
You want to peddle out-and-out socialized healthcare. You are in lock step with one solution in mind, period, and you're just here like a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman, selling your one brand of vacuum cleaner.
or in other words
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:52 ET by Free StinkerBlonde: 1
Troll: 0
خال
Another display of juvenile behavior.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:00 ET by SideShowAdd to the discussion if you can.
Unwilling to do so?
Stick to what you know best- juvenile antics.
The only ones winning in this discussion are the health insurance companies.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
side show - new name for "The Prof"?
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:27 ET by Free StinkerIt's amusing to see you Trolls lecture others about juvenile behavior.
And don't forget that I got you to admit the glaciers were not shrinking, ok Prof ?
خال
Which one?
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:33 ET by SideShowSome shrink, some grow...just like the conservative movement.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
Bart asks the wrong questions
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:46 ET by dock383Few doubt that reform is needed. The issues are whether and to what extent should the federal government be involved and how to afford it. For decades, government interference in the health market place forced health insurers to subsidize those without insurance. Thus the defensive policies to delimit costs. The federal trackrecord with spending and regulation is consistently horrible and indefensible. I would also hope that Bart realize that the Democrats in CONgress and Pres. Obama are using this as a ploy to enhance power and control. Look what entities (big Pharm, tort bar) are not significantly impacted. All pols are BOUGHT and PAID FOR by lobbyists, PAC money, and greedy for votes.
It's interesting how you said "health market".
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:55 ET by SideShowYou are speaking of health as a product to be bought and sold. Really? You actually think diabetes cares what health plan you have? Whether you're a conservative or liberal? How about having a health plan with 300 million participants? What do you think the costs would be compared to a business with 30 employees? 300? 3000? 30,000? Think about it for a few moments. That's the simplified version.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
Ever hear the phrase "one-sixth of the economy"?
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:35 ET by SickofLibsIt's a market, an industry and millions of products.
What it is not is a feeling.
So it should stay the same?
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:41 ET by SideShowJust want your take on it. You are okay with the current system?
No need to change it?
On a personal level, have you seen a rate change- up, down or the same? Lose any benefits? Doctors are the same or some have left the plan? Simple questions.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
$8000 per person per year.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:29 ET by KarmaThis is what health care costs average for every citizen. Without insurance, a family of four should prepare to pay $32,000 a year for medical expenses. Insurance is not a credit card that never expects re-payment. Medical costs are what need the most attention. Not insurance.
The government could just force every citizen to set aside, in a government trust fund of course, $8000 per year ($32,000 for a family of four) and eliminate your outlandish insurance premiums altogether. That sound good to you, SS? Do you think that will reduce health care costs?
Hi. My name is John Q. Public, but some just call me racist.
SidewaysShow
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:12 ET by MrShyFunny, doc383 actually agrees with you (as we all do to varying degrees, I think) that there is certainly room for some improvement ("reform", if you will) on the current private-leaning insurance system we have -- and in the process simply points out a fact that we are all aware of (you, too, I would have to assume, unless you're head is literally in the sand):
The federal trackrecord with spending and regulation is consistently horrible and indefensible.
What do you do? Dismiss it outright, basically. So, obviously, you really DO just want government-run, socialized medicine and healthcare, come hell or high water.
Some American you are.
Wrong.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:28 ET by SideShowI want socialized health insurance. I think you should be able to retain your doctor. I've never said I wanted socialized medicine.
The Federal track record with Medicare is pretty good from the reports, correct? It's overhead costs are 3% and it's a good government program a lot of seniors rely upon everyday.
I think when you start throwing in defense costs and overruns you get a pretty bleak picture of the Federal government, right?
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
SS
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:33 ET by MrShyHey, mor...... arg, okay, I'm trying not to call you names.
Defense, my friend, is what the government is essentially for. We ramped it up after BJ Clinton stripped it down and let us get attacked on 9/11. We are a whole lot safer now. Thank Bush, btw.
But I digress. Again, gov'mint should run military and basic infrastructure things. It is NOT to run a mamouth health insurance company... that would (pretend to) "compete" with actual free-market insurance companies.
You're such a socialist-loving liberal.
Shhhh
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:37 ET by Candance MooreDon't let SS know that Medicare has a 3% overhead because they force patients and doctors to spend more time on paperwork, and what they do end up having to process gets outsourced to third party administrators.
Oh, and they're kind of in the process of going bankrupt anyway.
But no matter to him. HuffPo talking points are good enough.
SideShow
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:25 ET by MrShy"If you just lost your job and your health insurance was cancelled
would you be in favor of universal healthcare that took care of all
your basic needs for you & your family?"
Ehh..... no. Here's what I'd be in favor of:
I'd be in favor of getting a new job. Also, I'd like to think -- especially with a family -- that I was smart and responsible enough to save a little money (nest egg, ya know?) in the event of losing my job. You also have me curious how I lost that job.
I'm in favor of taking responsibility for myself and my family, and not praying that Mommy Dearest (the guv'mint) will be there at a moments notice with a safety net.
Sure.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:52 ET by SideShowJust for a moment- there are a number of assumptions on your part. First- You are an optimist. Your hope of finding a job is well intended. With a family to take care of and the responsibility of saving a little money would be commendable. I think you are not alone. Of course, your hope could turn to despair if the job search produces nothing. Then what? As the nest egg goes bust, the health insurance canceled and you become ill, what next? This scenario is happening everyday whether you want to think about it or not. Even if you do get a job, will that employer have a health plan? I know the answer, "I'd get a job just like my old one with the same plan." Pie in the sky. You're answer was at most a deflection.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
answer me SS
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:56 ET by Candance MoorePeople are dying right now because we don't have universal food. This scenario is happening everyday whether you want to think about it or not.
Are their deaths less tragic???
What are you talking about?
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:14 ET by SideShowAre you trying to equate universal healthcare to having a steady supply of food?
Is that how you are approaching this?
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
Talking Point SlideShow
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:13 ET by MrShyWow, I get repremanded for.... optimism.
That's all I need to know about your way of thinking, and your salivating over the prospect of a new, depressing, socialist USA.
The deflection.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:22 ET by SideShowI'm not reprimanding you for optimism. It's nice. It's heart warming. Someone tried to tell me, "Try eating love" as another person said, "All you need is love." at the same time. What happens when that nest egg runs out, insurance is canceled and someone gets sick? It's quite simple, isn't it? Be a realist for a change. You'd be the first looking for someone to help you whether it's the government, family, friends or charitable organization, right? I know you'll answer,"No. it won't ever happen to me." Now, that's pie in the sky optimism.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
I wonder
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:27 ET by Candance Moorehow much cheaper life would be if SideShow's industry was not allowed to earn a profit. If no one had to spend money on him there would be more cash for Tylenol.
So, you're okay making a profit off the sick?
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:34 ET by SideShowThat's what you're saying, right?
As long as you stay healthy, pay the insurance companies for a potential health problem, never go to the doctor, your health plan is the best? Sounds simple, enough.
We shouldn't profit off of people's illnesses or their fears on becoming sick.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
SocialistShow
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:37 ET by MrShySo, you're okay making a profit off the sick?
Good GRIEF, you're so clueless and naive.... or just evil, and you just want to be manipulative with our words.
I can't take it. I need lunch.
you have two options, SS
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:39 ET by Candance Moore1) Condemn those who profit from food while homeless people starve.
2) Admit you only care about deaths that help you punish Anthem.
It's one or the other.
I think I have my answer
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:25 ET by Candance MooreThanks for playing.
SS
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:11 ET by MrShyIt's.... so. dang. simple.
I want to pursue happiness. I don't want to be "handed" it or gauranteed it. I very well might fail and be miserable and have moments of despair. Wait.... erm.... I HAVE failed and HAVE had these moments. I got back up and tried again... tried something different.... I/me/myself.... not the guv'mint.
Are you incapable of wrapping your head around the most basic concept? Of individual freedom? GovHealthCare is so far on the other side of that spectrum.
I can't be any clearer on this. Good luck to you.
SS
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:29 ET by MrShyOf course, your hope could turn to despair if the job search produces nothing.
Good grief. Once...... AGAIN..... you're not getting everyone's basic point here. A point about.... the realities....... of........ LIFE.
People despair!
Yes, they despair. All around the world. And they will regardless of what you want to do. It's the way of the world and humanity.
It sucks, I know, and as much as you and libs want to play God with some fairytale idea that "despairing" will go away with centralized, guvmint-run.... everything, ultimately, it appears..... you are sadly mistaken. (Well, but you're not, really. You must know, but you just want to ram this ***t through to feel like you're making a difference.)
Meanwhile, you comp-LETE-ly want to strip us all of our true freedoms... to chose our own paths in life, and have our own choices. To risk success or.... oh no, here it comes.... failure (which, yes, will include the dreaded "despair".)
Live free or die, as they say.
Stop deflecting the issue.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:43 ET by SideShowIt was a pointed question to you. Not the world's despair. Are you okay with suffering or dying needlessly? Everyone is throwing around costs and benefits, well, why not have a system in place where the healthier worker can produce more without worrying about their family members getting sick with a curable illness? You speak about choosing a path in life with callousness. Maybe it's time to spend a little to get people healthier so they won't lose traction as they try to get down that path. If they are able to produce more they add more to the system which far exceeds the costs in supplying basic care.
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
Shy -- I hope that will be
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:18 ET by Jack BauerShy -- I hope that will be a "green" job...
In fact I want your next single to be "I'm Dreaming of a Soylent Green Christmas"
poll questions for SideShow
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:47 ET by Candance Moore1) If you were hungry, would you be in favor of punishing greedy cashiers in all those grocery stores with their profit margins, and have the government control our food supply? Think of all the homeless people who wouldn't be dying if we had universal food control.
2) Would you be willing to have the governmnent own all property so that no one would ever have to pay rent, thus eliminating homelessness altogether?
3) Considering how many children suffer needlessly because their parents can't afford winter clothing, would you be in favor of the government making more efficient use of our clothing supply?
Food supply control?
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:10 ET by SideShow1. We are what we eat. Corn and Petroleum. Would it come to a surprise to know who controls the food supply? Would it be a surprise to know who sits at the controls? How about people in the government from the food suppliers? Food libel laws are part of our system of government. I'm surprised you would even bring it up.
2. I don't know where you are going with this since you're trying to describe a hypothetical communist/socialist state. Capitalism does not need a democracy to prosper. You know this, right?
3. There are tax exempt entities and tax exempt programs which help those in need. Indirectly, we are already providing funds to those in need.
Homelessness begins when one is without a home. You're okay with the current state of affairs in the housing market?
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
people are dying, SideShow
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:25 ET by Candance MooreThey're starving to death, freezing to death, and falling off the radar into life on the streets. One death is too many, remember? No profit margins in food, food would be free, no more starving. It's very simple.
Your argument is that food is already regulated so it's a non-sequitor. Then why do people still starve? Healthcare is already regulated and that hasn't been good enough either.
Why don't you want a guarantee from the government that your basic hunger needs will be met?
Capitalism does not need a democracy to prosper. You know this, right?
If we're killing jobs in healthcare, why can't we do so elsewhere? Landlords are every bit as greedy as doctors. They'll kick you out into the snow on Christmas Day if you don't pay rent. Shouldn't that change? Wealth has no business being made when it affects life and death.
There are tax exempt entities and tax exempt programs which help those in need. Indirectly, we are already providing funds to those in need.
If we already help those in need, then why we are talking about people dying because they need help? One minute death from illness is a real situation, the next minute we are already funding those in need.
Either people needlessly starve/freeze/die from illness,or they don't
Pick a side.
Candance (The Honorable)
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:35 ET by MrShySS is just further proof that liberals, in a twisted subconcious way, just want to play God.
My bro's exactly this way.
You still haven't commented on my new site mock-up :(:(
Well DUH!
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:30 ET by DaMamaObama is unpresidented when it comes to interefering. He has tried to take over banks, corporations, and now health care.
Does this man really think that people are too stupid to do things without government intervention?
There is no way I want the government messing with my health care. Obama deserved not just bad marks, I think he has a D-, and when 2012 comes around, he needs to flunk out of office!
DaMama
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:35 ET by BlondeI hate to do it to you, because you don't post here often, but I hereby grant you today's Mrs. Molly Prop award....for your unintentional and incorrect (but totally spot-on and therefore hilarious) use of the word "unpresidented" in reference to the Vain Obama.
Congrats! That really made my day. :)
I hope he fails, too.
You have to wonder, is
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 12:32 ET by Jack BauerYou have to wonder, is there a Tipping Low Poll Number in which the slightly saner Johnny Lemming (Democrat) Cliff, will decide, nuts to this.
I don't think. Apparently they all suffer from an existing pre-condition: delusional. Now if the GOP could actually get its act together, they could hand them a stupendous beating, instead of just the usual gains expected in the political cycle.
After all, the recent polls are all based on the shameless shilling by a compliant Democrat media and a weakish GOP opposition.
Poll schmoll
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:09 ET by tim413And Mr. Ed Schultz still does not know where conservatives get their info/statistics; therefore, "They lie!" I am so tired of libs trotting out the "Americans favor the public option" poll result. That might be accurate (According to one or more surveys.) but it certainly is not the truth.
Stop federal judges from foisting their notions of "fairness" on the States. Amend the 14th Amendment! - tim413
Agreed.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:17 ET by SideShowI'm tired of polls in general.
The General Election speaks volumes and trumps any poll. Thank goodness. Of course, you need money to get the message out- thank goodness for the corporate message, great marketing!
SideShow
"The Bart, the"-S.S.Bob
if said once its been said 100'a of times-
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:25 ET by JIMMY1660if liberals really wanted to care for the uninsured-issue them Medicaid Cards and fix Medicaid.leave the rest of us alone.
its that simple. this is about stealing/controlling 1/6 of the economy. nothing more.
"Sheep thought
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 01:20 ET by RR GOP"Sheep thought I".
Typical. The majority of Americans were down with this as long as the rich/someone else footed the bill and didn't make health care more inconvenient for them to get.
Once they started to realize it would cost them more and they would have to wait longer because more people would be wanting to see the doctor every time they got a blister on their heel, that they would be forced to leave plans they like, that it would cost them more anyway, that care would be rationed, that care would be less available as they became older "useless eaters" to use a Nazi propaganda term...then they had second thoughts.
Thanks again, a$$hats for voting in these SOBs! Thanks!!!!!!!
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.