Monday, March 08, 2010

Nebraskans hate the Health Care bill

In our previous post on the Nebraska Governor's race, we referenced the Rasmussen Reports poll which took a snapshot of Nebraska on a few issues.

The one we didn't address (because, frankly, it was Saturday afternoon) was the poll numbers on Nebraskans' view on the Health Care Re-form bill rolling through Congress. It looks like this:

Nebraska's view on the current Congressional Health Care Reform Plan
In favor: 32%
Oppose: 64%

And more...
Strongly favor: 12%
Strongly oppose: 51%

Compare this to the 52% of Americans as a whole who oppose the Health Care bill and you get an idea where Nebraskans stand.

And beyond the numbers, we juxtapose this poll with the random statements of Nebraska's Senior U.S. Senator.

He will say that he is "listening" to Nebraskans.
He will tell you that he has heard from Nebraskans.
He will tell you that Nebraskans want hope and change and a chicken in every pot.

But if he votes for it (again), he won't be representing the majority of Nebraskans. But then maybe he just doesn't care about that.


And while we would like to see the breakdown by Congressional district, Rasmussen reports that 61% of Nebraskans disapprove of President Obama's performance. 47% strongly disapprove (compared to 41% strongly disapproving nationally).

And just in case any is wondering, Tom White and Mark Lakers are both Obama guys.

Wonder if anyone will mention that during the campaigns?


macdaddy said...

I'm sure that Nebraskans feel this way because of the Mutual of Omaha Mafia or because we just don't understand the good things Obama is trying to do for us. And we're racist. Don't forget that last one.

NE Voter said...

In 1965, 69% of Americans "opposed" the enactment of Medicare.

Today, over 90% approve of the program.

History shows that the majority of folks tend to oppose truly progressive legislation at the time of enactment (Social Security/Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act/Americans with Disabilities Act).

Within a generation or less, each of these programs has been nearly universally embraced.

The take-away is this: Human nature generally prefers the status quo even when the status quo is s----y.

Meanigful change is just hard for most people. Health care reform is no different.

The bill will pass by the end of the month. Two years from now, no one will remember what the fuss was about.

Street Sweeper said...


Just to make sure you read it correctly: a majority of Nebraskans oppose THIS bill.

You may note that the polling info goes on to state that Nebraskans would prefer:

By a more than three-to-one margin, Nebraska voters think passing smaller bills that address individual problems is a better strategy for reforming health care than passing a large comprehensive bill as the president and congressional Democrats are trying to do.

IF this bill passes, in two years many Dems will be claiming that they didn't REALLY vote for that bill...

GeosUser said...

Since most people will almost immediately see a significant tax increase if the health care bill passes, I seriously doubt that people will forget its passage. Two years from now, most of the promised improvements from the bill would likely be unraveling and repeal of the bill will be one of the major Presidential campaign issues. In 2012, the Republicans will regain both the House, Senate and White House and most/all of the Health Care law will be repealed. President Obama will be enjoying his retirement in early 2013 and extreme lefties like macdaddy and NEVoter will be back crying in their beer.

Street Sweeper said...

I'd also just like to state, for the record, that in two years people will be asking what movie won Best Picture the year that Avatar should have won it.

(The answer: Annie Hall.)

Anonymous said...

They may hate it now. Will they hate it in the future? What would have polls said about Medicare in it's infancy? If you read what the GOP said about it and being communism. If the rest of the Nation wanted it, does Nebraska have the right to stop it? I know you right wingers will say the rest of the nation does not want it. You will quote polls that say that . The same polls that said John McCain would win in 2008. Or how many people who lived in the south during the time of the Civil rights act wanted equal rigts for all black people? Most of their Senators did vote against it. Did they do the right thing? Or how about "Don't ask , Don't tell"? 60+% of the people in the latest poll say get rid of it and allow gay people to have their civil rights. I bet most of the Nebraska GOP are saying that poll does not mean anything. The only thing that really matters is what REALLY happens in the Congress. To be honest since the House and the Senate have both all ready passed a health care bill. It does not really matter what a very small state population wise and its reps in Congress do now. If the Democrats have the votes to get the bill to the president's desk they will do it. If they don't they won't. I think they will have the votes. Just like in 2003 when Vice President Cheney broke the 50 -50 tie and gave the rich people of America another tax cut. The changes in health care for Americans are coming to America.

NE Voter said...

Geo, you mean how the conservative crusaders repealed: Social Security/Medicare/Civil Rights Act of 1964/Voting Rights Act/Americans with Disabilities Act?

Ain't gonna happen.

Look no further than George Bush's truly delusional attempt to privatize Social Security immediately after he was elected in 2004. A disastrous move that set the tone for his failed second term.

Bush and his advisors completely misread the public's attachment to the program. It goes without saying that a successful hand-off of SS funds to Wall Street would have bankrupted millions in the economic/market meltdown of 2007-2008.

Only Congressfolks in the most conservative districts will tiptoe into "repeal healthcare" territory.

Take it to the (bailed out) bank.

buck turgidson said...

SS -

Avatar did win Best Picture. In 1990, when it was called "Dances With Wolves."

"The Hurt Locker" is a very, very deserving winner.

Shoe Salesman said...

The reason Nebraskans "hate" the health care bill is because of the string of lies (death panels anyone??) the NE GOP and its leaders have told about it, the $8 million in special interest advertising spent in Nebraska to defeat the bill, and the general fear mongering about big government that permeates the mindset of folks here.

Did rasmussen ask Nebrakans if they preferred doing nothing which would give the insurance companies a free pass to continue to increase premiums while cutting services and limiting access?

The argument in Nebraska is intellectually dishonest and being waged by intellectually challenged leaders.

Hell, some of these fools thought GIVING BACK 400 million in federal funds to Nebraska was a good idea. Anyone else notice the governor sent a letter asking for those funds AGAIN?? He's gonna have to raise taxes (HCR or not) to cover MEidcaid in NE without a federal bailout.

Sure, Nebraskan's "hate" the health care bill. Wait til wellpoint increases their fees 40% as they did in Claifornia and 12 other states. Then who'll be whining?

Probably a lot of the nabobs here and elsewhare that dont want government running their lives - except for limiting choice for women, subsidizing the ag industry, paying for their health care (yes it already happens folks), covering the costs of public education, limiting marriage, and banning flag burning.

Street Sweeper said...

(Not to turn this into a movie-review blog, but dammit it's too late now...)

Look, Hurt Locker is a good movie.  And Avatar's story may be Pocahontas redux.  But if you're talking about full BEST picture, it's an easy decision, I think.

But in any case, my point is that in a few years, no one will remember Hurt Locker and Avatar will still be groundbreaking.

(And I'm sure many Academy voters back in 1977 said, "Yeah, I've seen Buck Rogers before...")

TedK said...

We all know that Rasmussen consistently leans right compared to other polls. But I'll agree that national polls show that pluralities are against the health care reform bill. However a McClatchy/Ipsos poll, Feb 26-28 (I'd post the link but SS has an obsession against making it easier for people to verify info that is posted; might let some truth/facts enter the discussion) asked a follow-up question that found 37% were against health care reform because it didn’t go far enough. Factor that in and 59% are in favor of health care reform and only 30% are against. So a large majority of Nebraskans may be against the current health care reform bill, but you cannot also conclude they are against health care reform. But Republicans never care for honest debate.

HATE IT said...

I hate this bill now and will hate it in the future! They need to start over otherwise they will be vreating a whole new problem for the next generation.

Street Sweeper said...

Ted (and everyone else with a stick up their ass),

My reasons for not allowing links are thus:

1) I don't like to have to go through and police every link that's posted to see if it's a Rick Roll or porn or someone's personal business or someone's personal site they're pimping or whatever else. By simply rejecting them all it saves time and effort.

2) I'm sure there's some site out there that just says EXACTLY what you want. Or you could, you know, type the point yourself. If there's really some magical site that proves the world is flat that everyone must see, just describe it and the masses can use their own Google machines.

There, now don't we all feel much better?

Carry on.

Anonymous said...

HEY SS..didn't YOU just post a Link?

Street Sweeper said...

You get some pretty sweet perks when you run the blog.
(Actually, that's pretty much it. But still...)

TedK said...

SS, you are the ONLY site that I frequent where links are banned. It's simply a control issue, which seems to be a common personality trait for those on the right. The point of a link is to back up information that is presented. The reader can visit the link and decide for his or herself whether the site is credible and backs the poster's opinion. On a blog, anonymity protects the cowards who can post any lies or deceptions they desire. A link is useful in defending the credibility of one’s post.

Point 1 is a canard or at the least says something about your audience. The law is pretty clear that you are not responsible for your posters’ posts.

And as to your “stick up the ass” comment, please look up “psychological projection” on the Google.

Street Sweeper said...

well (and this will be the end of the discussion)

1) thanks for reading
2) and people still know how to use Google
3) notwithstanding the fact that the law is absolutely NOT clear on that point, I don't want links junking the place up, and I don't want to have to take the time to police them

If you really want to link something, put your blog/website in your Google ID and then update your blog with links and suggest that people click your ID when you want to link to your favorite links. Links.

thanks (and I'd follow up on your suggestion, but you didn't provide a link...)

macdaddy said...

Whoa there GeosUser! Me? A lefty? Especially an extreme lefty? ROTFLOL and LMAO. My post was sarcasm.

I think NE Voter makes a good point, however, but that we come to 2 very different conclusions as to what the history means. I don't have time to go look up the polls from 1965, but if 69% of people opposed Medicare, then their impressions were correct. There is probably nothing that is more responsible for runaway health care costs than the creation of Medicare with the exception of perhaps making employer-provided health insurance tax-free. And why do people so love this program now? Easy. They have nothing else. There is nothing you could replace it with right now or at any time in the next 20 years. So, if I were 75 and had spent my entire life with someone else paying for healthcare and my choices were Medicare or nothing and I had zero funds to pay for anything else because my retirement planning was based on the government picking up the tab? Sure, I'd approve of Medicare.

NE Voter's point shows the danger of comprehensive government programs. People become dependent on them even when that program is going to be the ruin of them. Look at what is happening in Greece now. That country is on the verge of completely unraveling because they have no money because there is too much government dependence. That's the problem with Obamacare and why it needs to be strangled in the crib. It is going to add to the other huge programs that are already bankrupting us and will bring about our demise sooner. People talk about how Republicans are greedy and concerned with money, but there is no one more selfish than someone on the government dole.

Anonymous said...

I think we should ask Sara Palin the darling of the right wingers, what is wrong with governemnt run health care? I mean if she can get her grandson on Native American Government health care, or the fact that she admitted today that she has used Canada's government health care lots of time, why can't the rest of America get in on a government run plan?

NE Voter said...

Macdaddy, I appreciate your respectful tone. I must point out that Greece's economic collapes has nothing to do with government programs/spending.

Instead, Greece's collapse is directly tied to transactions it made through Goldman Sachs in the year 2000 (roughly).

Anonymous said...

Did the folks doing the polling over at Rasmussen ask their respondents if they’d read that bill they are supposed to be so opposed to? The right of the uninformed to have an opinion is protected in this country.

Rasmussen designs their polls to skew the results to the right. The media coverage in Nebraska is also right leaning. An objective look at the results for Nebraska in comparison to other parts of the country won’t produce an accurate picture of where the public stands on this legislation. (90+ % have no idea what it is.) What it does produce is an accurate picture of how effective propaganda is in influencing public opinion.

Anonymous said...

Your headline says Nebraska hate the health care bill. You quote a bunch of polls. To prove it. Yet by reading the comments on this blog it looks like most of the writers want the health care bill to be passed. Really strange to see a GOP blog in favor of Obamacare has you call it.

Street Sweeper said...

Awesome point. That makes total sense.

Dayton Headlee said...

NE Voter- your logic rests on the "we know what is in your best interest than you do" mindset that has proven to be the downfall of this administration.

We may not be experts on policy, but we know right from wrong. Talk with us, no down to us.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the law is quite clear: This case upheld that liability from 3rd parties isn't a punishable offense under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. try ACLU v. Reno, 521 U.S. 444 (1997)

That being said, I can understand wanting to control your blog, just surprised a little that you object to informing your readers better.

Street Sweeper said...

1997? You mean back when the internet was about 3 years old? We follow the issue and there are many more recent cases regarding blogs.

In any case, I never said we're worried about liability for links.

Thanks for reading kids.

One Out In The Third said...


I bet a dozen donuts the higher numbers come from us rednecks out here in the Third. Our SEIU membership numbers are lower.

Anonymous said...

I follow the issue closely too. It looks like there is a lot of agreement amongst the circuits, so I can't buy that argument. Just look up the act on the wikipedia page and you'll see.

You are worried about time? Why not give one of your trusted community members access to delete comments that are off topic, etc, etc. Top down approach is tough when it is a blog of one.

Street Sweeper said...

Thanks, we're happy with the way things are running here.

Feel free to implement said changes on your blog.

Anonymous said...

Good luck with making up arguments about so-called court cases that aren't there. Leavenworth blog motto: Some information is good information, and we will decide what information people have access too.

Just think about all of those links that could have been checked instead of engaging in this back and forth.

Street Sweeper said...

You're obviously too busy clingin' to your guns and religion.

Right Wing Professor said...

Latest scandal to break is Eric Massa , anti-Obamacare Dem, telling everyone who wants to listen about the tactics used to strong-arm him into resigning from the House. That's going to play real well with the rest of the blue-dogs.

I've heard he's doing Larry King and Glenn Beck shows in the next couple of days.

There are some tactics you can use on the Chicago Board of Aldermen that just won't work on the US House. I think the small-time thugs in the White House are learning that the hard way.

And all of this makes the Offutt Air Base threat story from last fall all the more credible.

Right Wing Professor said...

I bet a dozen donuts the higher numbers come from us rednecks out here in the Third. Our SEIU membership numbers are lower.

Zero is less than three, yes.

NE Voter said...

RWP -- Last week, Massa said he was resigning for health reasons. Presto-flip flop-chango - Now's he's resigning for other reasons (forced out, Haw!).

If he truly opposed health care reform he would not resign. He'd stay and vote NO.

Right Wing Professor said...

NE Voter:

In a sense, it doesn't matter what happened, it's what the blue-dogs believe. Massa is giving detailed and highly incriminating accounts of events, and unless Emanuel steps up and denies them, they're going to be believed, by his colleagues and by the country.

The charges themselves sound pretty lame -- 'sexual harassment' only in the most PC sense.

Anonymous said...

Nebraskans don't like Socialism

No thank you Democrats!

Go back to Russia!

Brian T. Osborn said...

Hey Anonymouse 7:09. I'm a Nebraskan and I like Socialism. Therefore, you are a liar, a cowardly one at that.

Pollster said...

Despite how you might ‘interpret’ the meaning behind the numbers, Rasmussen survey methodology is impeccable. As someone who actually does survey work and understands polling methodology, the attacks against them are baseless.

A quick Google search will inform you that in one of the last election cycles Rasmussen actually had a better track record than virtually any other major polling firm. (I won’t post any links that the tyrannical SS will sensor, but when I start my own blog like everyone else posting on here is going to do, he’d better watch out!)

Spin the results anyway you like, but lay-off the messenger.

Anonymous said...

I think if you read your history books Socialism brought only death and distruction of over 16 million people in USSR and 9 million in China, 5 million in Vietnam.... Should I go on????

Any idiot that would say that needs to realize they are a spoiled non realistic drone that has no clue to history or how government works. I dare you to move to china and live in an average town and see the fruit of Socialism with all it non running water and sewers along with their backroom healthcare. Wait maybe the 5 year Russina economic plan worked out well too.


One Out In The Third said...


I would be wrong would be 4 to 3. Ya gotta know that Jane...Hubby and the kids are all card carrying SEIU purple shirters. Where do I deliver the donuts? The sandbar north of Funk?


Good to see you are still breathing. Almost stopped by Cheek's to see if you were still above the grass line.

Anonymous said...

I know how we can cut cost.... Shut our hospitals down for the weekends and there you go..

Thats the government answer for the postal system. Now don't you want government to run your healthcare?

Street Sweeper said...

Hey lets all bring the venom down just a tad -- or so help me we'll do an entire week on that Millard School Bd race.

Now no one wants that, but you've been warned...


Nathan said...

“I don't think there's any question that I'm a very strong pro-life governor.”
-Gov Dave

If it could talk, an unborn baby would disagree with you.

Nathan said...

And Avatar was a visualy stunning movie, by far nothing else can touch it. But that plot is tired, old and unoriginal. People will remember Avatar, but the Oscars aren't judged by box office receipts.

Anonymous said...

From my point of view this BTO person seems to know what he is talking about when it comes to socialism. He is not talking about the dicatorships of the Soviet Union and or Red China. But more like the Northern Europe nations that seem to have their act together. Has for Defecit Dave it does look like he is on his anti illegeal alien speel again. He only brings it out during an election year. Since most Nebraskans really don't know anything about it. It works to be full of hate. I just don't know how he can hate babies?

Anonymous said...

I love the libs on here attempting righteous indignation on how prolife any Republican refusing to grant illegal immigrants taxpayer funded healthcare.

1) It is a federal bureaucracy that has established the rule.

2) The libs refuse to cut any single program to pay for the bill these young ladies rack up.

3) If we don't have to prove they are residents of the U.S., how are we going to prove they are residents of dear old NE?

4) All of the above, again, and in capitals, and with an exclamation mark!!!

Show me the law, show me the money, show me your passion for the unborn on any other Sunday this year.

Anonymous said...

BTW, Prolife endorsements are due this week, I am sure Mello and Conrad are rushing to the post office with their candidate questionairs.

Macdaddy said...

Anon 7:51: excellent post. It's just like the screeching about Gitmo, wire-taps, and summary executions using predator drones when Bush was President. Now that it's Obama, the Left is purring like a kitten when he does the same thing. I think most people see right through the obvious political hypocrisy and have moved on.

Shoe Salesman said...

RWP - You have flipped your lid.

Massa sexually harassed a staffer - a male staffer. Isn't the GOP platform explicitly against homosexuality? Are you condoning sexual harassment? (I know its ok around here with some since Chuck Siegerson can fondle a fast food mascot and get away with it).
Had the democrats not initiated an ethics inquiry the wingers like you would be squealing "cover up!!"

And Massa himself called it "sexual harrassment" when he said to a male staffer "I really should be fracking you." he went on local radio and said 'Is it inapporpirate? Yes. Am I guily? Yes."
Are the Dems in Congress forcing him to confess in the media? You cant be serious with that lame attempt to downplay a clear case of sexual harassment - when a boss solicits sex from an employee.

The Offutt rumor was traced back to Newt Gingrich's lobbyist. Go to Media and search for it. The original email with the threat came from this right winger and was orchestrated by the conservative blogs - including this totalitarian blog. You can read the actual email which appears to be written to a Johanns staffer.

But keep up the conspiracy theories you rumor monger.

Anonymous said...

Just Because Rahm Is Your Enemy Does Not Mean You're My Hero - KJL

Jamie said...

Medicare has been painted by special interests like the AARP as good, yet is the most inefficient government program to date.

Medicare pays 8 times what other federal agencies pay for their most common supplies. They also pay in excess of $1,900,000,000 for drugs. This also means higher copayments for seniors. Fraud and accounting errors cost the the program over $12,000,000,000 annually. This program sucks, and I don't want one like it to replace our current healthcare program, whether it's popular or not.

Right Wing Professor said...

Massa sexually harassed a staffer - a male staffer. Isn't the GOP platform explicitly against homosexuality?

I have no idea what the GOP platform says about homosexuality.

Neither I nor you know the details of what Massa is accused of. In the present PC world, a little rough humor can be cast as sexual harassment. At least according to Massa, that's all it was.

Are you condoning sexual harassment?

When did you stop abusing children?

Had the democrats not initiated an ethics inquiry the wingers like you would be squealing "cover up!!"

It appears an ethics enquiry was initiated only after Massa fell foul of the party bosses.

And Massa himself called it "sexual harrassment" when he said to a male staffer "I really should be fracking you." he went on local radio and said 'Is it inapporpirate? Yes. Am I guily? Yes."
Are the Dems in Congress forcing him to confess in the media? You cant be serious with that lame attempt to downplay a clear case of sexual harassment - when a boss solicits sex from an employee.

He said it at a loud rambunctious party in the presence of a bunch of other male staffers. If you think that was an attempt to solicit sex, you're stupid even for a leftist.

Massa is a Dem. I'm not defending him; he ought to know to walk on eggshells among that bunch of cut-throats and grievance mongers. But it does seem he was thrown to the wolves by by his 'colleagues', simply so they needed one fewer pro-health care vote. I mean, you can't be serious, 'ethics' taken seriously by the party of Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson, Jack Murtha and Jim McDermott?

The Offutt rumor was traced back to Newt Gingrich's lobbyist.

Or first reported publicly by that lobbyist.

Bud said...

You right wingers are something else. When these kids are born. They will be American citizens. What is wrong with taking care of American Citizens? Now I sw something on a super right wing blog(KKK) that explains this. But we are not allowed to cut and paste links on this site. But their solution was pretty sick.

Jamie said...

Right Wing Professor- 1.
Shoe Salesman- 0.
Stick to the show industry.

GeosUser said...

It's true, unfortunately, that a child born in this country even to illegal immigrant parents is automatically a US citizen. However, your assumption that they must be born here is a huge fundamental logic error, a mental condition all liberals/progressives/socialists/communists suffer from. When an illegal presents themselves for any taxpayer funded services to which they are not entitled, they should be detained and immediately deported as current immigration law provides. Hence, the child will not be an American citizen by birth but they would be welcome to come back legally and work to obtain citizenship like our own grandparents or other ancestors did back in the day.

Anonymous said...

As we debate legal vs. illegal, it is probably more important to discuss right and wrong. Providing care for the unborn is the right thing to do. I never realized that pro-life only applied to Americans. So the abortions of illegal immigrants doesn't count I guess.

The Gov's position indicates a couple of things.

Dave Fan said...

The Governor's opposition is purely political. Understandable since he is a master political strategist. He must not be too worried about NRTL endorsement in any upcoming elections. hmmm... I wonder if he already knows that.

Right Wing Professor said...


I estimate there are several hundred million unborn children in the world right now. How many of those should the US look after?

Bud said...

Unfortunately? What type of a crack is that. Kids have no choice where they are born NONE!. Any time a child is born in America we may just get a great leader or student or athlete or any other some thing great. I see the glass half full. You must see it half empty. America is a land of immigrants. Yes the are illegeal. What are you going to do? Build a Berlin wall with machines guns, land mines on the 2000mile plus border with Mexico. How about with Candada to keep them from coming that way? Or maybe the Army needs to strip search every boat and every ship that comes to America the land of the free. That is not the America I want to live in. A country is only really great by how they treat the really poor and disvantaged who wish to live here. Not by how many tax cuts the very rich get to buy one more boat or huge house. When I hear right wingers say something about punishing the rich people who recruit and hire these people to do the work they do; then I will listen to your unfortunately. That will never happen.

macdaddy said...

And RWP, why limit it to "prenatal care?" Why are we not giving them vouchers so that they are eating right and living in healthy environments? They also shouldn't do hard work because this stresses the unborn baby, so clearly we should give them money for housing and clothes. Also, if they have other children, those children can bring home diseases that will infect the unborn, so we should also have their kids taken care of by others to decrease that risk. On the other hand, since we are concerned, we also need to make sure that they are not smoking or drinking and definitely not doing drugs.

But, you know, if those other things are too expensive, but prenatal care is so cheap, then I'm sure that the poster(s?) here would be more than happy to go find one of these women and pay for their prenatal care themselves. It's the patriotic thing to do, apparently.

macdaddy said...


Right wingers say to punish those who hire them. Either you're deaf or not within earshot.

Bud said...

I am glad you say punish them. I have yet to see a right wing politician say that. They alwys blame the victims. the poor, the ones who can't defend themselfs. How about a million dollar fine per person they hire? Maybe the corporations would wake up on that type of a fine. How about the crooked ones who bring all of the people across the border. Work them and then turn them in with out paying them. What type of punishment should they get? This problem is not a simple black and white problem. We are talking about human beings. Our fore fathers would have and in some cass did the very same things that you say is wrong today. If you lived in Mexico and had a family I be willingly to bet you would want to come to the USA for a better life for your family. You would take your chances. The question is what type of a country do we want to be? A great country or a country that only thinks about the RICH?

E.V. Debs said...

Face some facts folks. We're going to be paying for all the services for the illegals. They're not sneaking in for the benefits, they're looking for a job. The benefits are just a government subsidy so their employers can keep wages down. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has done more to block immigration reform than any other group. The next time you go into a business with one of those Chamber of Commerce stickers on the door remember when they thank you at the check out counter that they’re thanking you for paying extra taxes to support illegal immigration.

Nicholas said...

When you ask the average American if they support the health care bill, more than a majority opposes it. Half or so of those opposed do so because they don't think it goes far enough.

If you ask people if we need health reform, however, the numbers switch--a strong majority want comprehensive health reform.

Moreover, while the bill itself is unpopular, ask people about whether they support specific provisions of the bill (instead of just support for the bill itself) and support is dramatically different. Let's take a look at the Kaiser Family Foundation's tracking poll on the percentages of Americans supporting specific provisions:


Reforming the way insurance works?

Providing tax credits to small businesses?

Creating a health insurance exchange (read, marketplace)?

Closing the Medicare Part D 'donut hole'?

Expanding high-risk insurance pools?

Providing financial help to purchase coverage for low/moderate income families?

The fact is that strong supermajorities of Americans (Dems, Indies, and Repubs) strongly support those provisions.

A recent Newsweek poll asked additional questions..

59% support requiring all to have insurance, with assistance to those who cannot

75% support requiring employers to provide coverage, with tax credit for small businesses

76% support an end to health discrimination, pre-existing condition denials, etc.

59% support an end to insurers dropping people when they get sick

Alright, broadly we know that Americans support the provisions in the bill, but not the bill itself. What can we learn from this? No one really understands what is in the bill, they don't like it, but they do.

Now, will Rasmussen poll Nebraskans on individual components of the bill? It'd be interesting, but that's unlikely.

Macdaddy said...

Rasmussen left out some other provisions such as cutting a half billion from Medicaid, federal funding of abortion, and buying insurance or risk getting fined or going to jail. I think people understand obamacare. When is Obama going to accept that? Never. And for the record, obamacare is not about cutting costs or increasing coverage. It's about gaining control over you and me. People know this and don't like it.

Right Wing Professor said...


100% of Americans support getting a $1,000,000 personal cheque from the government. 0% support paying more tax so someone else can get the cheque.

Of course if you poll people on whether they want certain benefits, they will say yes. However, ObamaCare comes with huge costs that are not properly paid for. People are smart enough to weigh the benefits versus the costs, and they aren't buying.

The biggest problem Dems have is that they firmly believe most people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves.

Lady Liberty said...

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...

Macdaddy said...

Sorry. Not rasmussen. Kaiser. Damn iPhone.

Nathan said...

Macdaddy, Try a blackberry, they offer more bang for the buck in my opinion.

Too Bad said...

The reason Medicare D pays so much more than "other federal agencies" (that would be the VA Health System) is because the VA negotiates directly with drug companies etc. for reasonable prices--something that was prohibited under Medicare D when it was enacted. The "8 times" thing you claim--you got that at Heritage; and, again, Medicare isn't allowed to negotiate prices as is the VA. Medicare Part D is a crime--a gift to the medical/industrial complex; an unfunded, mandated burden shoved through by the tax-cutting nuts who are supposed to be "conservative." As for your $12,000,000,000 "fraud and accounting errors" claim: I googled your numbers (Street Sweeper doesn't); perhaps you met $12,000,000? Which is not to say that $12 million is great, but it's a helluva lot less than $12 billion. And this fraud is cooked up by the third-party insurers and presented to Medicare--which actually has an administrative overhead of 3 percent, compared to the typical 15 to 25 percent overhead of private insurance organizations. (Just think of all the bullshit $ that could be saved with single-payer. . . Canada's provincial single-payer plans have an overhead of about 1 percent; fraud is a nonissue there, too. Just a thought)

Anonymous said...

Any of you see where the Governor's veto was overridden today? I think there were 33 votes to do so, can't point fingers at those who voted yes and say they lack courage of conviction. Of course there was only one person who voted against the bill along the way. It would seem there are a few Senators who saw the light and flipped their votes because the Gov asked them to. Looks like the corner office isn't driving the train all the time.

Brian T. Osborn said...

Hey 1/3rd,

Yeah, I've been really busy lately. Not so much time for politics as I'd like. I haven't even been down to Cheex for a while now. Maybe we should get together there for a couple beers and a good argument.

GeosUser said...

In numerous other postings on the subject of illegal immigration, I've made very clear that I'm very much in favor of punishing employers who knowingly hire illegals. I've gone so far as to suggest that their deduction of employee expenses in the calculation of corporate income taxes be retroactively disallowed for the tax years in which illegals were employed. If the IRS and NE Dept. of Revenue adopted that stance, the largest corporate employers would almost immediately take every step possible to ensure no illegals are in their workplaces.

bob said...

Well said RWP. Getting something for nothing is always appealing to people, until people get something and it costs them too much in taxes, freedom, integrity, whatever. People know "it's too good to be true" but they keep on wishing.

Obama is a nothing more than bag of warm wish air. People have gotten a whiff of him and they wrinkle thier noses. What is that? Cheese? Feet? Gas? Thanks to Ben Nelson, if there were any Americans with plugged noses, Nelson unplugged them.

Ben Nelson's stench as a byproduct of Obama's digestion of America.

People get it. They don't necessarily think Republicans have the right answers, but they know for damn sure the Democrats don't.

One Out In The Third said...


I've been working on Uncle W. to have a gathering at the new health facility at the Elm Creek Interchange. He says his pacemaker couldn't handle it. Pip could show up too...that way you would have balance. I'd much rather meet for a good laugh or two. Good laughs are fewer and farther between these days. Maybe when it gets a little warmer and the flood waters recede.

Shoe Salesman said...

RWP - still defending Massa after Glenn Beck and LArry King interviews?

Lemme ask you, if your University President said to you during one of your ivory tower white wine swilling parlor parties, "hey RWP, I really should be fracking you." What would your reaction be? If he said it in a board meeting or a keg party is it different?

What if your colleagues attempted to "tickle" you?

Massa admitted sexual harassment. Period. I can only hope the right wing nutjobs - lead by pompous fools like you, embrace this guy. Media reports indicate there is more to the story than he's admitted. and any claim of sexual harassment is required to be investigated fully. AS I said, if the ethics committee didn't look into this youd be among the loudest squealing "cover up."

Your partisanship is apparent and intellectually dishonest.

Jamie - thanks for keeping score. You must be a RWP sychophant. ZThanks for reading.

Right Wing Professor said...


Back when I was young and even better looking than I am today, a gay and more senior colleague liked to come up to me periodically and give me a nice hug. What did I do? I made sure never to get within ten feet of him. Did I go whining about sexual harassment? Hell, no.

Massa sure sounds like a bizarre guy. Being a bizarre guy has never been an impediment to an extended term as a Democrat congressman. Running foul of the leadership, on the other hand...

Of course I never defended him in any way; you just made that up.

As for your insults; if I respected you either as a human being or as a thinker, they would bother me.
Since you're just a pseudonymous ass, they don't.

Shoe Salesman said...

RWP - or should I call you "Right Wing Massa"? You didn't answer my questions.

What would you do if your boss solicited sex from you - gay or not gay? Why should people put up with harassment in the workplace?

As for your slam against Democratic congressmen - I'd point out that there are more folks with (R-FedPen) after their names in our corectional facilities.

You defend Massa by claiming he was mistreated by the big bully Nancy Pelosi. You jumped on the right wing narrative that he was muscled out of the House by the chicago thugs. You were prepared to make him a martyr.

The guy is a serial sexual harrasser. There's no place for that in congress or in any workplace. Not everyone is as macho as you, Winger. Some people are initimdated by their employers. Some people are worried about rebuffing advances for fear of losing their jobs (I'm gonna guess you have a nice tenured ivory tower position out there where you are warping minds).

You thought Massa was a hero. You were rong. Admit it.

Still abousing children RWMassa?

Anonymous said...

GeosUser @ 5:42 on 3/10, this is important. You suggest that, "If the IRS and NE Dept. of Revenue adopted that stance, the largest corporate employers would almost immediately take every step possible to ensure no illegals are in their workplaces." If only that were true. Sorry it's not.

During the Clinton Administration, I was an in-house corporate counsel for a very large private employer that employed a significant number of immigrant workers. When it came to hiring of potential illegals, we were caught in a whipsaw. On the one hand, we faced sanctions from the Clinton Administration's Dept of Immigration and Naturalization if we were found to have employed an "undocumented alien." On the other hand, the Clinton Justice Department through the EEOC would sue us for national origin discrimination for failing to hire someone whose documentation was questionable.

I am not kidding. I am not making this up. There were plenty of cases where we were damned if we did and damned if we didn't. Now, imagine yourself as the personnel director at a facility making a hiring decision about someone who appears to have complete documentation. Is there any way you would reject them for employment knowing their next stop will be the EEOC?

I don't think you can entirely (or even mostly) blame the problem of illegal immigration on employers, particularly the large ones.