HuffPost: Obama Speech Shifted Public Opinion In His Favor: Polls

[BurtWorm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/10/obama-speech-shifted-publ_n_281985.html


First Posted: 09-10-09 08:56 AM | Updated: 09-10-09 02:09 PM


Polls suggest that President Obama's address to Congress on health care reform had a positive effect on shifting public opinion.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. snap poll of people interviewed before and after the speech indicated that the president shifted public opinion in his favor. After the speech, two-thirds said they supported Obama's health care proposals, compared with 53 percent in a survey days before the president spoke. About one in seven speech-watchers changed their minds on Obama's proposal, but the audience was more Democratic than the U.S. population as a whole, so the results do not reflect the views of all Americans.

Dial-testing by Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling and strategy firm, found that Obama's speech moved Americans on both sides of the aisle to support reform.

Democracy Corps conducted dial testing of the speech with 50 independent and weak partisan voters in Denver, Colorado, followed by focus groups with voters whose support for Obama's health care plan increased after seeing the speech. The dial group participants were evenly divided among those who initially supported and initially opposed the plan, with an almost equal division between Obama and McCain voters.

These swing voters reacted strongly to Obama's message. Support for Obama's plan jumped 20 points, from 46 percent before the speech to 66 percent after. Importantly, Obama also achieved one of his principal goals of boosting the intensity of support. Prior to the speech, just 2 percent of these swing voters supported the plan strongly while 26 percent opposed it strongly; by the end of the evening those numbers were virtually reversed, with 28 percent supporting the plan strongly against just 8 percent strongly opposed. The president was also extremely successful in moving the needle on areas where progressives have struggled over the last few months, making great strides in reassuring voters on issues like the deficits and taxes, seniors and Medicare, choice and control, competition and costs, and government intervention.

Older independent voters came away from the speech more supportive of health care reform and feeling that the president had addressed some of their concerns, according to the AARP.

Their national survey found that 77 percent of independents had concerns about health reform coming into last night's speech and 72 percent felt that some of those concerns were addressed. Sixty-three percent of independents considered themselves "more supportive of the proposals being talked about related to health care" after the speech was over.

"What we saw in this survey was something we've seen for decades: that once you explain why we need reform people understand its importance," said Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President. "Last night's speech wasn't as much of a 'game changer' as it was a volume softener."

[kestrel91316]

1. That soft popping sound you hear is millions of freeper heads

exploding across the nation.

[yellerpup]

2. A lovely sound!

Shake the kettle and set it back on the fire! :hi:

[Spazito]

6. Not to mention a few DUers as well, lol n/t

[flyarm]

3. for a minute maybe??????

or is it real???????



Letting Insurance Write the Bill: How Bad Is That?
By: emptywheel

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/letting-insurance-write-the-bill-how-bad-is-that/

Thursday September 10, 2009 8:51 am

Ezra has written a thoughtful follow-up to my complaint that discussions of the role of insurance company in writing our legislation neglect to discuss profit. I agree with parts of it and disagree with others. The most important point Ezra makes--which explains his focus on providers to the exclusion of insurance companies--is this passage:



a must read in it's entirety...

Of course, that's not entirely right. Patients whose health care is provided by their employer "like the health system better when it's got unlimited amounts of money flowing through it." Patients who have to pay out of pocket--like many of the ones who will be mandated to buy insurance--don't really like that so much. And it's not just patients and providers that like a system that's got unlimited amounts of money flowing through it. So do insurers (assuming you understand this to be a system as a whole). Even assuming insurance companies only make that 3.3% profit and setting aside things like huge executive incomes, the insurance companies have an incentive to have as much money flowing into the system that it can take its 3.3% profit on.

And that's one of the baseline problems with letting the insurance companies write the bill: they have just as much incentive as providers to see that as much money gets flowing into the system as possible. And, they have an incentive to make sure that as much of the money put into the system as possible stays in their pocket. For those affected by the mandate who will not be subsidized or will only be partially subsidized, it is actually the patient, and not the insurance company, with the most urgency to cut the amount of money flowing through the system. But the patient doesn't get to write the bill; the insurance company does, and it appears that it is with these patients that the insurance companies stand to make some of their highest profits.

That's one of my gripes with the Max Tax. It sets out-of-pocket caps higher than other bills and sets lower amounts (73% if they are to be subsidized) that insurers have to cover. The result will be that more middle class families go into debt. As it's written, the Max Tax (frankly, most the bills) amount to a mandate that is simply not affordable for some middle class families. But the Max Tax throws in a bit more mandated costs that will go to insurance company profitability. The extra thousand or more dollars included for insurance companies means a lot to a family otherwise faced with surviving off of less than $8,000 for utilities, transportation, education, clothing, and debt. To me, you don't have to get any further than this money--taken from middle class families who will still go into debt under this scheme and giving it to insurance company profit--to demonstrate "how bad it is" that the insurance company wrote the bill.

The other big difference with a bill written by insurance companies is that it includes no apparent means to challenge the insurance companies to limit how much money they ask to be put in the system in the first place--something the public option would help to do. Now, Ezra argues the exchange will be enough to bring costs down.








oh and don't miss this:

Sen. Claire McCaskill: I'm Happy We're 'Handcuffing The Public Option'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9RV_r-k9lU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edemocraticunderground%2Ecom%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard%2Ephp%3Faz%3Dview%5Fall%26address%3D385x368864&feature=player_embedded

[Zenlitened]

4. Excellent. That's the power of the bully pulpit, right there.

And he even used the "L" word, in reference to the "death panel" horseshit: "It is a lie, plain and simple."

Sweet. :applause:

[flyarm]

5. maybe until people find out what is really happening!

Obama’s Speech: Trapped In the Gap Between Action and Rhetoric
By: Jane Hamsher

Thursday September 10, 2009 7:30 am


The President did a great job last night on selling the country on the need for health care reform. He made the moral case, and every metric indicates that people were overwhelmingly moved to support his plan. That's the good news for the White House.

The not so good news: the White House has been trying to get out from under the burden of supporting the public option for weeks. The trouble is, every time they try to do it, the President's numbers take a huge hit. And so last night he came out and indicated that a public plan would be a part of his reform package.

go read it all.........

snip:


The administration's inability to close the gap between expectations and reality is a boon for progressives members of Congress. Earlier this week, the co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus -- Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey -- wrote a letter urging the President to mention it in his speech. I spoke with Rep. Grijalva yesterday, and he reiterated the need for the President to mention it in his speech. As long as the President keeps expressing his support for a public option, they -- and we -- can quite rightly say that we're only insisting on something Obama himself endorses, something he campaigned on.

Of course, the actions of the White House betray quite a different intent. The deals they have negotiated with health care industry stakeholders do not include a public plan, they don't believe they can back out of them without triggering a rush of lobbyist money to GOP coffers. At some point there will be a day of reckoning when the public understands that the public option is gone. The White House wants to stop their opponents -- and let's face it, progressives who are insisting on the inclusion of a public plan are at this point their opponents -- from being able to exploit that gap. Because every day that goes by the base gets more and more wedded to the promise of a public plan, encouraged by the positive rhetoric of the President himself. And it becomes that much harder for the White House to extract itself from the double bind they have created without paying a huge political price.

One day the 11 dimensional chess set is going to have to come to terms with the fact that Rahm Emanuel worked with Max Baucus to cut deals that they force into the House through the Blue Dogs, and that the goals of the White House are not at odds with those of the Blue Dogs. Which is why Rahm protects them. And why we keep hearing things like this:

Remember back on Friday, President Obama discussed the public option on a conference call with House liberals?... Well that meeting never happened. t doesn't seem to suggest that House liberals are being roped in to the health care negotiations between the House and the Senate.

[johnaries]

7. Oh, horse shit. Or maybe horsefly shit.

Here is what Obama actually said:

some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.

So, he said that other ideas are "worth exploring", but that "WE will provide you with a choice." Now, if there is a better and more viable way than a Public Option I will support it, too. But there isn't. Obama knows that.