McConnell: Poll Showing People Support Public Option Is Misl

[jellygraph]

clearly polls are misleading when they don't conform to your opinions, but accurate when they do... *sigh*

[verstwo2]

@somecomputergeek :

"Are you saying that police don't ever kill or use violence, or are you saying that they don't enforce tax laws?"

-Neither. I'm saying police don't use violence to enforce tax law. It's called reasonable force.

"So you wouldn't pay for these things unless somebody was threatening you?"

-what things? what threat? I do pay my taxes and I've never been threatened.

[somecomputergeek]

"police don't use violence to enforce tax law. It's called reasonable force."

What's the difference between violence and force?

"I do pay my taxes and I've never been threatened."

I pay my protection money every week and I've never been threatened by the Mob. Yeah, they don't start threatening you unless you stop paying them. You might feel good about having to pay your taxes, but how you feel about it is irrelevant - it is NOT voluntary.

[flowergirl1313]

so, if you explain to the people what a public option really is, they support it. But if you label it "gov't takeover of healthcare", they don't support it. What does that tell you?

[musicmsnger]

no doubt

[somecomputergeek]

HR 3200 consists of three main things:

1) A Law stating that all citizens are REQUIRED to get health insurance, with penalties for non-compliance.

2) A publicly-funded, government run insurance company.

3) A mandate requiring that all private insurance companies be approved by the government.

How is that not "gov't takeover of health care"?

[carrierexchange]

It's faked by the White House!

Republican ass hats!

[maskedphrogg]

Just because it's a hat doesn't mean you should prop one on your head.

[IcyKitty]

I am all for the free market when it comes to buying things like sneakers, but not then it comes to the health and wellbeing of the commons. Insurances should not be allowed to make a profit on health care. Single Payer!

[8blkcat]

McConnell = Yet another No-Fact-Zone-head & a Republican for Rape.

[1234uz]

He says My Guess, he says Probably, he says Blah Blah Blah when Repugnates are confronted with the FACTS they simply say what ever they want to say. THat is THe Repuklican Way I HATE REPUBLICANS they should be outlawed. I know lets start some camps and we kin put em all in them thar camps LOL

[AtheistOnTheEdge]

I see, so he thinks people should be asked questions that make changing the healthcare system sound bad? If it was up to him, he'd ask questions like, "Do you support government run death panels?" then add up all the no answers he'd receive and use this to determine whether or not Americans want the healthcare system changed.

[AstoundedAtheist]

Republicans and facts don't mix.

[baddmanaz]

good strategy: when confronted with facts, just pull something out of your ass to contradict them.

[mclev]

That's the Republican way.

[gamoonbat]

Huh?

[Watchout5]

McConnell says "the government shouldn't be in the insurance industry". So where's the amendments for the US to pull out of any sector of insurance? We sell flood and fire I know for sure, and I'm willing to bet this asshole has used them before. What a moron.

[ClassicFIHD]

Where doe the Government sell flood and fire insurance?

[Watchout5]

They subsidize the price as a tax rebate. The congress also creates laws that specifically tell them what they can and cannot do with that money and it's fully backed by tax payers. So while it's not the government directly selling you insurance, they have a public option for when the private market won't insure you or their rates are way too high.

[ClassicFIHD]

"They y subsidize the price as a tax rebate" For who? Give me the name of a public company. Law yes, that's understandable.

[maskedphrogg]

No, it certainly isn't the government selling you insurance. And if we accept your example what I see is one needs to spend more than the rebate is worth to see the rebate. It's across the board so no particular insurance company benefits. What again was your point?

Seems to me McConnell is supporting your notion that the government shouldn't be diverting tax monies under a facade of doing something else.

Or do you not feel government should be transparent and stick to Constitutional guidelines?

[awerner2007]

call your senators and tell them to support a public option!

[ClassicFIHD]

F NO!

[MooseOfReason]

There's a reason beside the specific wording of the question why the Washington Post/ABC poll is flawed. They had more Democrats in their sampling than Republicans - 33% to 20% respectively.

[CalexanderJ]

No shit. That's because there's more democrats than republicans in the country.

And here's the exact wording the poll used:

"Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?"

57% of people either strongly or somewhat supported it, compared to 40% of people who strongly or somewhat opposed it. If I was Bitch McConnell I'd find those facts inconvenient as well.

[ClassicFIHD]

LOL, so then the question asked never uses the words "Public Option", right? Why not? And I hear this poll was by the far left ABC network so I can understand why they would not use the words "Public Option" in thier question.

[CalexanderJ]

Come on dude. You can't be seriously saying that using words "new government created health insurance plan" is more unclear than saying public option. And ABC is almost as far the right that it's pulling up to Fox news.

[njcarlos1]

It actually is... if you took a public opinion class, pollsters always use weighted and unweighted vocabulary to get desired results. Happens from many pollsters, not particularly leaning any way politically.

[CalexanderJ]

I'm not disagreeing that pollster use weighted words. Of course they do. But the argument that using "public option" is more specific, precise, and unbiased, than saying government created health insurance plan is ridiculous. "Public option" is a vague term. You could get two progressives in a room and they might not even agree on what a public option is. If you don't follow the news you might not ever know what a public option is, but you'd know what a government insurance plan is.

[ClassicFIHD]

LOL, like everyone watchs the spin doctors on the new. Fuuny how they take a poll about a public option and don't say public option. Sounds kinda like an assault weapons ban that has NO assault weapons in the ban. What ABC are you watching?

[greyflcn]

re: MooseOfReason

And there's certainly a bit of wonder as to why that was the case.

One reason proposed for this is because more and more people of rightwing persuasion are no longer identifying themselves as Republicans.

Instead branding themselves as Independents.

_

That said, there's still plenty of polls which show that you have the usual 2/3rds for, and 1/3rd against.

[recompile]

Well, there are more democrats than republicans in the country. Seems reasonable to me.

[leftygunz704]

What makes a corporate bureaucrat less evil than a government bureaucrat???

[somecomputergeek]

corporate bureaucrats are just as evil, but they don't have the legal authority to put you in a jail where you may be beaten and raped.

[somecomputergeek]

READ THE GOD DAMN BILL.

Right now, there are over 40,000,000 Americans who don't have health insurance. This bill would make it a LAW that these people MUST buy health insurance.

SOME money will go to help "poor" people pay for this, but we're talking about LIMITED RESOURCES and EVERYONE will be under the law.

This bill turns those 40 million Americans into CRIMINALS and makes it IMPOSSIBLE to have health insurance without government involvement!

IDIOTS!

[Ccolebrooked]

Where are you getting that it's forced health care? I thought we would still be able to be uninsured and I haven't heard any different.

[somecomputergeek]

opencrs. com/document/R40773/

[verstwo2]

you're wrong. 1st ..there isn't a final bill to read yet.

also, it wouldn't make people without insurance criminals since it would be a part of 'criminal' law. Uninsured would only have to pay a fine to cover their emergency health costs.  I also don't see why having health insurance would require any more gov. involvement then there already is. Or why that is a bad thing. Insurance companies are currently one of the only industries that are exempt from anti-trust laws.

Idiot.

[somecomputergeek]

If you don't have health insurance, you are fined.

If you don't pay the fine, you are taxed.

If you don't pay the tax, violence will be used against you.

You are just so used to having a nice, cozy big brother to keep you safe, you don't see the obvious problem with this. Why is that a bad thing? It's not, as long as you stupid enough to trust an institution that jails a larger percentage of it's own citizens than any other country in the "free" world.

[verstwo2]

"If you don't pay the tax, violence will be used against you."

..or they could non-violently take the tax straight out of your pay check.

- It's called a social safety net. Done properly (without corruption or apathy) it's proven to reduce crime and help people raise their standard of living. US conservatives prefer putting criminals in jail over addressing the reasons why people become criminals (mental health, education, poverty,social injustice, etc.) Liberals prefer social services.

[somecomputergeek]

Social safety net? I realize that's what you want to believe. How many wars, bank bailouts, big digs, bridges to nowhere, CEO bonuses and jets, $800 hammers, foreign dictators, and other misc. abuses will it take for you to realize that taking money from people against their will with very little accountability to you until you realize that the system itself is curupt and apathetic?

[verstwo2]

Well most of the things you mentioned do have to do with corruption and apathy (incompetence too). People aren't perfect, so it's safe to assume the 'system' will never be perfect either, but it doesn't mean it can't be a positive force. CEO bonuses and foreign dictators would exist regardless of western democracy. You seem to want to blame everything on the government. There may be parts of government that could be improved, but that it should be scraped or do nothing isn't a solution.

[somecomputergeek]

"CEO bonuses and foreign dictators would exist regardless of western democracy."

You're right, but YOU wouldn't be forced to PAY for them if it weren't for our massive government.

"You seem to want to blame everything on the government."

No, I'm not blaming "everything" on the government. I'm simply stating the obviously fact that a small group of people holding a monopoly on the legal initiation of violence is a horrible solution to our problems, and this fact is historically evident.

[verstwo2]

look at other countries like Norway or Canada that have more government involvement per capita and realize that they don't fund dictators or pad CEO bonuses, they have a higher standard of living then Americans and less crime. The "legal initiation of violence is a horrible solution to our problems" which is why it shouldn't be the only objective of government, but it's sometimes a necessary one. taxes are not violence so don't conflate the two, it's hyperbole.

[somecomputergeek]

"they have a higher standard of living then Americans"

Actually, no they don't.

"taxes are not violence"

So men with guns won't come to my house, kidnap me, and throw me in a cell where I may be beaten and raped if I refuse to pay this "protection" money?

The INITIATION of violence is NEVER a moral or justifiable action. Any use of violence that does not directly protect yourself or others from violence is immoral, and YOU force me to PAY for my own slavery.

[Lonao]

dunno about canada but norway have hiher standard of living then americans ..

Also, no taxes are not violence. Move to sudan if you don't like government, it's anarchist paradise without government

[somecomputergeek]

"Also, no taxes are not violence."

When violence or the threat of violence is no longer used to collect taxes, this statement will be true. Until then, it is false.

"Move to sudan if you don't like government"

You mean Sololia, but the point is moot. I could just as easily say "If you like government so much, why don't you move to China?".

Each culture is different, but no culture needs the institutionalized initiation of violence.

[Lonao]

other's already smacked your "taxes are violent" crap so i comment your claim "If you like government so much, why don't you move to China?".

China have less government than usa or europe. They have low taxes and almost no regulations for companys. That's why no smart person calls china communist anymore

[somecomputergeek]

"other's already smacked your "taxes are violent" "

No, they haven't. Taxation IS violence. It is completely based on violence and the threat of violence, and I ended up getting people to agree with me, though they JUSTIFY that violence as "somethings that's the only way to pay for things".

Search "Raising Awareness of Chinese Communist Party Atrocities"

[verstwo2]

I hope you're not implying here that I agreed that 'taxation is violence' because I did nothing of the sort. What I said is; sometimes violence is necessary to enforce laws. Where does you're Voluntarism leave serial killers and rapists? They should voluntarily go to jail? Or would you do away with prisons? Or is it just a government conspiracy and these people don't exist?

[somecomputergeek]

"What I said is; sometimes violence is necessary to enforce laws. "

Here is what you said in context:

"Why do you think the use or threat of violence the best way of paying for it? "

- I don't. But SOMETIMES it's the only way

Can you name ONE serial killer who has killed more innocent people than the tens of millions the US government has?

I'm not opposed to using violence against aggressive people. I just don't want to be force to PAY for their aggression.

[45CaliberCure]

@somecomputergeek Statists, more often than not, willfully unencumbered by reality , maintain a facile and fervent support of the most extreme uses of coercion and violence by their chosen masters as long it is directed against their ideological enemies, and as long as it does not appear that their particular ox will be gored. Sadly, those politicians they worship will wipe their feet equally on the rights of useful idiots as well as responsible citizens. There lies true equality.

[somecomputergeek]

@45CaliberCure

I agree. Too many people are focused too much on the proposed goals of government and none of them bother to step back and take a look at the actual nature of government - institutionalized violence.

[verstwo2]

- I'd be happy to see any stat that you can find that show the US has the highest standard of living out of any other developed nation. I've seen plenty that show otherwise.

"So men with guns won't come to my house, kidnap me, and throw me in a cell where I may be beaten and raped if I refuse to pay this "protection" money?"

- That's not taxation. The reality is that public infrastructure must be paid for. And everyone uses public services.

-I don't force you to do anything.

[somecomputergeek]

If the mafia used their protection money to do wonderful things -- things that need to be done, does that excuse their methods for taking money?

Public infrastructure MUST be paid for, you're correct. Why do you think the use or threat of violence the best way of paying for it?

[verstwo2]

The mafia is a poor analogy for government. The Mafia by nature is self interested and the government by nature is publicly interested. For either to be the opposite would be an exception to the rule. Mafia Bosses are not elected officials. The vast majority of people pay their taxes voluntarily and those who don't will not have police break their legs or kill them.

"Why do you think the use or threat of violence the best way of paying for it? "

- I don't. But SOMETIMES it's the only way

[somecomputergeek]

All institutions are inherently self-interested.

If you could vote for which Mob boss ran the territory you live in, would it matter? You're never given the option to shut down the mob.

Are you saying that police don't ever kill or use violence, or are you saying that they don't enforce tax laws?

So you wouldn't pay for these things unless somebody was threatening you?

[verstwo2]

"All institutions are inherently self-interested."

-except those whose explicit purpose is to serve the public interest.

"You're never given the option to shut down the mob."

- again your mob analogy doesn't work. No-one elects a mob boss...that's the point. But there is the option to shut down the mob..it's called the police and other law enforcement acting on behalf of the public interest.

[somecomputergeek]

"except those whose STATED purpose is to serve the public interest."

There, fixed it for you. Just because the government is supposed to be in the public interest doesn't mean the state isn't self-interested. Self-preservation is the # goal of all governments.

"there is the option to shut down the mob..it's called the police"

So you use one group of people who takes money by force to defeat another group of people that takes money by force. This isn't moral, it is the lessor of two evils.

[verstwo2]

"Self-preservation is the # goal of all governments."

-you're conflating partisanship with governance. Good governance takes the public interest into account. Self-preservation is also not inherently in opposition to the public interest.

"So you use one group of [elected] people who [Legally] takes money by force to defeat another group of [unelected] people that [Illegally] takes money by force."

-yes. that is how laws are enforced. How would you propose laws be enforced...voluntarily?

[somecomputergeek]

"How would you propose laws be enforced...voluntarily?"

ENFORCED voluntarily? That makes no sense. Voluntarism has nothing to do with enforcement. However, I do think that governments should only derive power from the consent of the governed. I disagree with many laws, but I am still under them, against my consent. If I use violence, then it is reasonable and ethical to use violence in self defense. This is not a law, but a simple moral truism, which the government is exempt of.

[verstwo2]

-Great. So you don't believe laws should be enforced? Or that there should be no laws in the first place?

-it is reasonable and ethical to use REASONABLE FORCE in self defense. If someone is trying to kill you and you can stop them without killing them...that is the ethical thing to do. Violence is only reasonable is the absence of any other option.

-The government is not exempt from law. It may break the law and get away with it, so can a person....but that's not the same as exemption.

[somecomputergeek]

It is about the SCOPE of the law. Right now, your are obligated to obey hundreds of thousands of laws that you have practically no say over. That's slavery, not civilization.

"Violence is only reasonable is the absence of any other option."

I agree. Why, then, do you support the state? The US government is the most violent institution on the planet.

The government is exempt in that you can defend yourself against their violent theft. This is not the case with any other entity.

[45CaliberCure]

@verstwo2 "The Mafia by nature is self interested and the government by nature is publicly interested." And there you have your disconnect with reality in a single sentence. Nice job. What alternative universe do you live in whereby someone employed by government is given a pass because they are employed by government? I'm publicly interested as well. I would like to see these quislings publicly introduced to a nearly forgotten political punishment called "Musket to the Junk".

[deadmeat343]

for the first time?

[eric3141k]

his response was interesting

[fishhead06]

"A government run insurance company" - first, lots of governments run insurance companies, and do it well. Second, who does he think administers Medicare and Medicaid? Pixies?

[dafttool]

Republicans only care about polls when they on the rare occassion come down on their side. All other polls are derided & ridiculed. It's never the "will of the people" to them unless it supports their own causes. If a dem leader touts a poll, the GOP accuse them of following instead of leading. The GOP seem clueless to the concept that they are SUPPOSED to represent the people, ALL PEOPLE, instead of just their corporate bribers.

[hellshade2]

what mcconnel is actually saying is he and other repubs don't give a damn about what the people want.....

[verstwo2]

typical republican prefers made up guess over factual stats any day.

[greyflcn]

re: verstwo2

Well as much as one would wish he was talking out of his ass.

He does have a point that depending on the way you describe it, does drop it's approval down to an even split.

greyfalcon. net/ publicoption

[verstwo2]

greyflcn;

He is talking out of his ass. you can tell by the way he premises every statement as opinion. Such as ...."my guess is...", "They probably...".

He is presenting no facts here. Just opinion dressed up as fact. He doesn't know how the question was phrased. It is only his guess that it was improperly phrased because he doesn't like the result. It's "his guess" that the #s are actually 50/50.

But yes if you describe it as Communist death panels the #s would probably drop a bit.

[Richardgwm]

Republicans are completely out of touch with the American public.

[MichaelConrad1D]

Erin Burnett is a Wall Street apologist / "Free Market" fundamentalist / hopeless trickle downer. There is nothing "for the first time" about the strong support for a real public option.

72% CBS / NYT in June

88% Employee Benefits Research Institute in July

76% NBC / WSJ in July

77% Survey USA in August

79% AARP in August

It's at 61%, up 6 points from August in the new CNN poll . Use words like "choice of a..." or "Medicare - like" and support grows.

[MichaelConrad1D]

Also, both Wa Po / ABC and R2K have it trumping "bipartisanship" (51% to 37% and 52% to 39% -- this month).

Burnett might have meant the "first time" in the Wa Po poll, but she's pretty much a Randian nutjob worthy of mockery ("Chocolate chip cookies!" on Real Time).

McConnell and his party are a punch line.

[CynicalSavior]

You have to remember.... the GOP only recognizes millionaires and trailer trash as "Americans".

[glory789]

New CNN poll shows 61% of Americans support a public option, but try telling some Republican that. The GOP is full of morons.

[integral]

What a maroon. Evil son of a biscuit.

[rickamabob13]

Today a poll came out that says what Senator McConnell says is overwhelmling misleading.