Flawed NYT Poll Used to Urge Obama's Takeover of Healthcare


Froma Harrop may have once been called Heartland Institute's "favorite lefty" journalist, but lefty she is and her use of a lopsided New York Times poll to urge President Obama to "act fast" on a government healthcare policy is a perfect example of that.

With her June 23 article, Harrop was frustrated that Obama was not "stepping on the gas" to institute publicly funded healthcare and she wondered why he is dragging his feet when "85 percent of Americans want 'fundamental changes' in American healthcare." This factoid she gleans from a very flawed NYT poll that is so badly skewed to the left that it is amazing anyone takes it seriously.

Harrop makes no bones about the fact that she wants a nationalized healthcare policy to be forced on the nation and she also doesn't think that anyone needs to listen to Republicans, effectively disenfranchising the roughly half of the American electorate that votes that way. Amazingly, Harrop is supposed to be a "financial reporter," yet she still wants this disastrously expensive, jobs killing, cost spiraling sort of plan anyway. This doesn't say much about her grasp of economics.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Nonetheless, Harrop says it should be full speed ahead.

President Obama has a green light and open eight-lane highway for health-care reform. But somehow the guy can't put his foot on the gas. He hedges in neutral while some fellow Democrats muck up policy and Republicans demagogue them into mush.

A commanding 85 percent of Americans want "fundamental changes" in American health care, according to a recent New York Times-CBS News poll.

Let's talk of this NYT poll. It shows that "Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system," and that 85 percent want those "fundamental changes" to our healthcare system. But a quick look at the polling data shows an interesting disparity of Republican to Democrat respondents. It turns out the polling sample is 48 Obama voters to 25 McCain voters. That is almost two to one Democrats over Republican respondents. Wouldn't such a Democrat heavy sample naturally find a higher number wanting those "fundamental changes"? (and what does "fundamental changes" mean, anyway?) The Times poll also says that a government healthcare insurance plan receives "bipartisan backing" with the result that, "nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats" back a public plan."

On the other hand, a Rasmussen poll from June 15 shows that the country is split 41/41 on whether they want a government controlled insurance scheme for healthcare. This split seems to reflect the rather more closely spilt electorate, doesn't it? (Remember that Obama won his election by a 53 to 46 percent margin)

Apparently, though, Harrop doesn't much care if half the electorate is ignored through overly speedy Congressional debates and wants President Obama to hurry up about it.

Above all, he should drop the obsession with winning wide Republican support for health reform. Time to stop idling and gun it out on the road.

Isn't it interesting how she feels that half the electorate being represented in Congress and in this debate is an "obsession" that Obama should "drop"?

Harrop also doesn't think the trillions of dollars this plan will cost the U.S. is any big deal. This is another amazing lapse from an economics reporter. In fact, it is clear she wants even more spending.

The problem isn't the $1 trillion. It's that the legislation would leave too many Americans uninsured. Even the $1.6 trillion earlier estimate is not an outlandish amount to spend on a decade's worth of high-quality health-care for all Americans. The Bush tax cuts will cost $200 billion more than that.

No doubt Harrop also believes the fantasy that 46 million Americans are uninsured and that no expense should be spared to cover them.

In any case, one wonders how Harrop imagines that the government is going to pay for all this totally new spending when budget shortfalls are being seen throughout the country for the unfunded mandates already in existence? But with ideas such as these, it is no wonder she wants Congress to hurry up and push this boondoggle through. She wants it done quickly before voters start to realize what a mess this policy really is and how much we are all going to be soaked to pay for it.

Harrop doesn't want debate and she doesn't want bipartisanship. She wants Daddy Obama to dictate to us apparently for our own good.

Isn't that swell of her?


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Is somebody, anybody, going

Is somebody, anybody, going to ask Obama if all federal employees will be put on this new plan? Would that someone then ask (because, as we all know the answer will be, hell no) why not, what is wrong with Obamacare that it is not good enough for all federal employees? I must be dreaming.

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

I do believe

I do believe that thus far federal employees ARE exempt and so are union members that have union plans.

Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.

Of course they will be

Of course they will be exempt.  

One plan for the peons, one for the masters and their favorites.

And even if everyone had "the same," does anyone think Ted Kennedy would have had to wait in line  like this man for an MRI?

Or like  this woman  for his surgery?

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

J. CARTER OBAMALAND (aka its gonna get worse!)

 IN J. CARTER OBAMALAND

Massachusetts housing homeless in motels at $2 million per month…$100,000 tax money to breed Wyoming Toads…
$10 Million tax dollars to improve education in Cambodia…PAPER: Fading
of the Dollar’s Dominance…1.6 TRILLION for the Healthcare
“Overhaul”…9-11 trillion of new debt…jobless 9.4% at least.

CRAWFISH NOTE: Modern liberalism is a mental
disorder. Its gonna get worse because they have the votes to impose
more and more secular socialist eco-kook laws on us. You just think its
rocky now. You just think its gonna be better by the spring. You just
think the so-called Stimulus will shorten the recession. You just think
unemployment will be below 9% this year or next. You just think words
that solve nothing actually solve problems.
You just think America will show world leadership with a spine for
freedom. You just think new taxes are not going to hit you next year.
You just think they are finished borrowing and vote-buying by the
billion. You just think non-answers and silly apologies are over. You
just think blatant lies to your face are over. You just think by summer
2010 your retirement account is going to be near its June of 2008 level.

If you think these things you need to research the democrat Jimmah Carter Misery Index…NOW…J. Carter Obama is here to stay.

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)

Flawed poll?

More like a deliberately deceptive poll.

Take my poll

How would YOU answer?

1. Would you rather have a) your hand cut off, or b) Obamacare?

2. Would you rather have a) fifteen years in prison or b) Obamacare?

3. Would you rather have a) Barney Frank move in with you for life or b) Obamacare?

My polling services are for hire. I have absolutely NO bias whatsoever. I can prove it. Obama will write me a note saying so.

The most important line in

The most important line in that post is "...that no expense should be spared to cover them."  That attitude is the reason why healthcare is so expensive.  Most people will say "no expense should be spared" to cover them and their family, but only when they are talking about other peoples' money.  Every insurer, in every state, offers an insurance plan that covers 100% of every ailment, with no limits, waiting periods, etc.  Of course, this plan costs about $2,500 a month, but hey... no expense should be spared right?  It's amazing how so many of the "no expense should be spared" crowd always buy the cheapest plan offered them.

I'm waiting for someone who wants this government plan, which is going to be a typical 80/20 plan, to explain how they can expect someone who can't afford even a low-level insurance premium to pay a 20% co-pay?  How long will it be before Democrats start dragging poor mothers with 4.5 kids in to testify about how cruel it is that they get insurance but can't afford the $2,500 or so co-pay for a single night's stay in a hospital?  How long will it be before taxpayers are tasked to pay for a 100% plan for some people even though they can only afford an 80/20 plan for their own families?

If publically funded (socialized) health care is so great...

...where are the lines of U.S. citizens flying to Cuba, Canada, and England for life saving procedures Froma?

We constantly hear how good Cuban health care is. Does anyone know anyone who has gone to Cuba recently for a life saving operation?

FYI, there is large tire

FYI, there is large tire raft departing the Keys for Havana at 6:10 EST today.

Obviously this woman...

want's the government to pay for her health care so the money she doesn't have to put out she can spend on more alchohol.  You would have to be three sheets to the wind if you think a government plan is better than a private plan.

"The government is not responsible for raising my children" My Mom!

How about if they want to

How about if they want to give free healthcare to everyone, everyone that receives it has to 'pay it back', as in community service.   

 

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Ronald Reagan

The Dinosaur NY Times

So I ask again, if there are any NY Times stockholders left, how many examples of how insignificant this worthless publication has become?.

Fictitious Stories.

In the Tank for a very flawed (and I hate to use this term) President.

Constantly on the wrong side of issues the country cares about.

Gives up military secrets to our enemies.

Sell your shares now while you can still get $5.00 for them. The asteroid is coming and it's not a pretty sight for dinosaurs. 

 

Malkin on Astroturf

Michelle Malkin points out today how Evil George and the usual suspects are astroturfing this supposed 'grass-roots' drive for government healthcare.

The Astroturf Drive for Obamacare: http://www.nypost.com

"If you believe the White House, 30 million Americans support a government health-care takeover. But if you look at the funding behind the ObamaCare campaign, it's the same few leftist billionaires, union bosses and partisan community organizers pushing the socialized medicine agenda."

We must also conclude that any 'public demonstrations' in favor of Obamacare are by paid demonstrators, Saddam Hussein style, by the ACORN Crime Syndicate.

the lib mantra

Facts don't matter - on health care.

Facts don't matter - on environmental issues.

Facts don't matter - on taxes & spending.

Facts don't matter - on foreign affairs.

Facts don't matter - on ...

Obamacare Not For Congress

Yes, Congress will be exempted from Obamacare:

Obamacare For You -- But Not for Congress:  http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com

"ObamaCare specifically exempts members of Congress along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116. If nationalized medicine is good enough for us then they have have to suffer as well."

The Big Union exemption is a new feature being discussed, I'm not sure if it has been drafted into written form yet, but Big Union is demanding it.

here's 2 responses the NYT sent me about the poll

When we ask respondents who they voted for in 2008, we do so in order to
look at voters who say they voted for Barack Obama as compared to those who
say they voted for John McCain.  We're not looking to recreate the 2008
election, because recall of past vote is notoriously unreliable as a guide
to what actally happened.

Traditionally, candidate who have won the election get a boost after the
fact.  Voting is socially desirable, and people who didn't vote for whatever
reason think they had and say they voted for the winning candidate. The
retroactive vote tends to be a substitute for popularity.

Generally we use this question to provide crosstabs - to look at people who
said they voted for Mr. McCain and see how they think about the health care
plan.  But as you can see from our article, we used party identification
instead. 

Thank you for interest in our surveys.
Marjorie 

 

I apppreciate your
question about the measure on the poll of respondents' vote in the last
presidential election. Historically, our polls and others have found that
respondents do not always accurately recall who they voted for in the past and
much depends on the popularity of whoever is living in the White House.
There was quite a good discussion of this phenomenon on Slate recently, which
you might want to take a look at. We use the question for purposes of internal
analysis but do not rely on it in any substantive way. We are more likley
to rely on poll respondents' self reported party identification or political
ideology when it comes to looking at differences between political groups.
Thank you for being such a careful reader of The New York Times and
for your interest in The New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Sincerely,

Janet Elder

Editor

News Surveys and
Election Analysis

The New York
Times

 

http://teleprompteri...

I forget: did I vote for Calvin Coolidge or John Davis?

"...respondents do not always accurately recall who they voted for in the past..."

Perhaps the NYT needs to revise their polling procedures to exclude patients residing in state mental institutions and winos dragged off the streets by Acorn.

I know it's all about "diversity", but this premise is completely idiotic.