Subscribe by RSS
In a brilliant illustration of how to skew poll results any which way you want, the recent New York Times/CBS News poll came out over the weekend claiming “72% support Obama’s government-run health care solution.” Taking a few minutes to examine the sample data will explain the immense discrepancy.
The bottom line, stack a poll with people who voted for Obama in a 2 to 1 margin and you get some broad support for his policies, imagine that. Then it becomes front page news.
CNSNews.com busts the poll wide open:
(CNSNews.com) – A New York Times/CBS News poll released Saturday that showed broad bipartisan support for President Obama’s health care reform, over-sampled Obama voters compared to McCain voters, critics say.
The poll, administered June 12-16, found that 72 percent of respondents favored the creation of a government health-insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.
It also said 50 percent of respondents thought the government would do a better job providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in 2007; and that 59 percent thought the government would be better at holding down costs, up from 47 percent two years ago.
But critics including pollster Kellyanne Conway say the results are inaccurate because they are heavily skewed toward those who voted for Obama in the 2008 presidential election.
In addition, other indicators point toward a repeat of the defeat Hillary Clinton’s proposed government-run faced in the early ‘90’s.
Out of 895 respondents, 24 percent were Republicans, 38 percent Democrats, and 38 percent were independents, according to a June 20 release from CBS News. While the release says the sampling was conducted at random, those numbers are significantly below the 32.6 percent who identify themselves as Republican according to a May survey from the nonpartisan Rasmussen Reports.
Similarly, the Times/CBS poll said 48 percent of respondents had voted for Obama, versus 25 percent for McCain, a nearly two-to-one advantage for Obama supporters.
Had those results been reflected in the November presidential election, Obama would have garnered 66 percent of the vote to McCain’s 34 percent, Conway, president & CEO of “the polling company,” told CNSNews.com.
“Was the vote 66-34? You tell me,” Conway said.
In 2008, Obama won 53 percent of the vote, McCain won 46 percent.
Conway said that the poll was skewed toward Democrats and Obama supporters because the Times and CBS made it so.
Predictable, yet sad how the new government-media complex is working hand-in-hand to push socialized health care on the country using faulty polling data. Some people were inevitably fooled by the poll since the New York Times made it their headline story:
“Almost nobody ever takes them to task for this, because they are CBS and the New York Times,” Conway added. “It is true that more Americans are identifying themselves as Independents, but everyone is doing polling; no one (else) is getting these numbers,” Conway said.
The Times ran an accompanying story on the front page of the Sunday edition with the headline “In Poll, Wide Support for Government Run Health.” The findings were also reported by most other major outlets.
The Times article interpreted the poll results as indicating broad, bipartisan support for government involvement in health care.
Then you find out that just below the surface, there is no support for a government health care plan which begins to infringed on the private sector.
Rasmussen points out that, in these areas, the Times/CBS poll was consistent with other polls.
“CBS, like everybody else, found that most people are satisfied with their health-care coverage,” he said. “But they have qualms about the overall system. And that is the biggest single obstacle to reform: people do not want to change their own coverage.”
Conway agreed. Because of their satisfaction with their own coverage, Americans are unlikely to rock the boat.
“The difference this year could be that Barack Obama is a more compelling messenger than Hillary Clinton.” But, she added: “Americans can do the math.”
They are hesitant to support the record expenditure it would take to pass sweeping health-care reform. Conway says.
So there it is, the 72@ number is totally bogus made up of Obama voters used to create the appearance of such support for Obamacare. What’s amazing is that this isn’t even speculation, just examine the polling methods and you can see the purposeful skewing as clear as day. The country didn’t vote for Obama in a 2 to 1 ratio which means this poll is already invalid before it even hit the presses. This appears to be something a bunch of amateurs would do yet it’s from the New York Times and CBS News, need I say more?
Here’s a hint: When the media has to skew polls to show inflated support for something, it’s bad news for the administration’s plans.
Visit the You Decide Politics Store »
Loading ...
“Dick Morris: Obama’s Healthcare Plan a ‘Catastrophe’”
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:11 PM
By: Jim Meyers
“Morris pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system now offers adequate care to 252 million Americans and the Democrats want to “expand it to 300 million Americans without expanding the number of doctors and nurses.”
“The problem is, by covering everybody Obama is really going to end up covering nobody. It’s going to cause rationing of healthcare, because you simply don’t have enough doctors to go around. You can’t just write a check and expand healthcare. You have to have people actually delivering the service.”
“One of the big things we talk about in ‘Catastrophe’ is the experience of the Canadian system. Candidates [there] did the same thing — they said we’ll cover everybody. Then they said, wow these costs are getting crazy. We have to cut the costs. So they cut the income for doctors.”
“More doctors retired. Fewer people went into the profession. Fewer and fewer doctors. More and more patients. Longer and longer waits, and worse and worse outcome.”
“The cancer death rate in Canada is 16 percent higher than in the United States . . . If you get colon cancer in Canada you have a 42 percent chance of dying. If you get it in the U.S., you have a 31 percent chance. Why? Because the top two medicines that we use in chemotherapy to treat colon cancer are not available in Canada — not because of any health restriction, but because they’re too expensive.”
“And the incidence of colon cancer in Canada is 25 percent higher. Why? Because there’s a 4-month wait for a colonoscopy. And when you get the colonoscopy, it’s not read by a [gastrointestinal specialist] but by an internist or sometimes by a nurse practitioner, and they miss about a fifth of the polyps that ultimately become cancer.”
“So you get a system where really healthcare is not delivered to anybody. And that’s what we’re headed for in the United States.”
http://www.newsmax.com/he.....28387.html
“Morris pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system now offers adequate care to 252 million Americans and the Democrats want to “expand it to 300 million Americans without expanding the number of doctors and nurses.”
That is very stupid. Um, giving more health insurance is a good thing, if there are already 300 million Americans and a certain number of doctors and nurses, how is giving more health insurance going to do something bad to the doctors and nurses. That statement is pretending that giving more insurance creates more human beings.
Just like Nate said before, just because there are people without health insurance does not mean that people are not getting health care.
“The problem is, by covering everybody Obama is really going to end up covering nobody. It’s going to cause rationing of healthcare, because you simply don’t have enough doctors to go around. You can’t just write a check and expand healthcare. You have to have people actually delivering the service.”
Again, stupid, the people without health insurance are still getting health care, and they do not have to wait in line to get it. The only people who sit around in emergency rooms are people who do not need to be there, they need to be in a doctors office. They can not go to the doctors office because doctors around here do not take patient who do not have health insurance.
“One of the big things we talk about in ‘Catastrophe’ is the experience of the Canadian system. Candidates [there] did the same thing — they said we’ll cover everybody. Then they said, wow these costs are getting crazy. We have to cut the costs. So they cut the income for doctors.”
Why not cut the income of CEO’s of hospitals and other medical companies making more than 1 million dollars a year on their direct pay to their pockets/banks.
“And the incidence of colon cancer in Canada is 25 percent higher. Why? Because there’s a 4-month wait for a colonoscopy. And when you get the colonoscopy, it’s not read by a [gastrointestinal specialist] but by an internist or sometimes by a nurse practitioner, and they miss about a fifth of the polyps that ultimately become cancer.”
Not having a colonoscopy is not going to cause a patient to get cancer, unhealthy diet is more likely to cause colon cancer then lack of colonoscopy, but I see where this is going.
The hole premise of all of this garbage could have been restated as “Socialized medicine leads to cuts in pay of health care professionals which ultimately leads to less health care professionals in the field and less care for patients.
How do we battle this? We write to our representatives in congress, and the AMA and other organizations sit down with the president and congress to discuss this potential catastrophe and work out a way that their health care reform efforts do not ultimately chase people out the the profession. Sounds pretty simple eh?
This story has been repeated in socialized medicine in this world. Canada was mentioned last night and reason I used this link.
Below is UK.
http://www.angelfire.com/.....lized.html
Uk has amount of money you are worth. If care goes over, forget it. This may not be mentioned in link
Bill,
Well that is truly outrageous to put a price on someones health. I would certainly not agree to do that here.
Example given was 72 year old man would not get knee operation or maybe heart work. I know health of individual is a factor here and now. But I believe it was Britian and/or Canada these things happen. Or expensive medicines for cancer are not given. People in Canada do come here for certain care they can not get in Canada.
This will happen here.
Is the US not smart enough to develop an insurance option that does not fail as does other countries? Perhaps if the government option is so poor, people will buy into other options.
United Health Care is freaking excellent.
Aetna used to have a great one, perhaps they have more than one.
I have United Health Care. I do not need physician referrals to see a specialist. I can see any physician I want. Co-pays are cheap, the prescription plan isn’t great, but who needs one when you have walmart, haha. Plus since I work at a hospital, I get cheap and sometimes free care as long as I receive care from a physician who has privileges at my hospital.
I certainly would not want to get rid of my health insurance. Not everyone will be as lucky as me to work in a hospital.
I have already heard the story about the government option putting private insurance out of business, or employers switching to the government option.
Kendale…….Keep us up to speed on what the AMA and Nursing Organizations stance on this is as it develops O.K.?
I hope you can keep your insuance. That is in doubt.
My medicare will be cut.
Here’s an article entitled “Many UK Cancer Deaths Premature” from the BBC.THE FIRST PARAGRAGH IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT COMPARES THE UK TREATMENT OF CANCER TO AMERICA.It can be found at:
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk.....117561.stm
By ROBERT PEAR and JACKIE CALMES
Published: June 15, 2009
“Mr. Obama spoke just days after the A.M.A. had signaled opposition to his proposal for a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers as part of a menu of choices, much like the one for members of Congress.”
“Mr. Obama drew repeated applause, and even some standing ovations, when he called for incentives to get more medical students to go into primary care instead of the more lucrative specialty practices, and when he pledged to work with doctors to reduce their often unnecessary “defensive medicine” to avoid malpractice lawsuits. But scattered boos met his follow-up remark that he opposed any cap on malpractice awards.”
http://www.nytimes.com/20.....obama.html
“Health Care Leaders Say Obama Overstated Their Promise to Control Costs”
Published: May 14, 2009
“WASHINGTON — Hospitals and insurance companies said Thursday that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise earlier this week to reduce the growth of health spending.”
http://www.nytimes.com/20.....ealth.html
No wonder there is a fly problem in the White House with all the BULLSHIT that’s coming out of there!
DDMao
I remember Obama’s little non contested speech how he and they came up with savings in health care. Obama is against reducing judgment in medical liability. He wants to use money from failing medicare to help pay for his health care.
Have not heard him say he would use large tax increase from energy.
This crap must make obamanuts happy. I wait to hear their joy. Since only rich will pay more taxes..
Obama’s upcoming health care commeical will not allow opposing views even in commericals.
Where does freedom bells ring… Iran people right now, not here.
I’m waiting for someone on the “BONEHEAD BRIGADE” to announce “If we had national health care Michael Jackson would be alive today.”
In fact I’m starting a pool and I pick Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton!