Pages

Monday, January 31, 2011

Poll: More Want to Keep Health Care Law Than Want to Repeal It

January 20, 2011 6:30 PM





CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.
(Credit: CBS)
More Americans want to keep the sweeping health care reform legislation passed last year than want to repeal it, according to a new CBS News/New York Times survey. Forty-eight percent of Americans say they want to keep the law in place, while 40 percent want to see it repealed.

Republicans campaigned on repealing the bill in the run-up to the midterm elections, and one of the first actions of the new GOP-led House was to pass a repeal bill.

Unsurprisingly, Americans are split on the issue along party lines. Seventy-three percent of Republicans favor repeal, compared to just 16 percent of Democrats. Seventy-seven percent of Democrats want to keep the law, compared to just 16 percent of Republicans. Independents favor keeping it by a small margin, 45 percent to 38 percent.

Among those who do favor repeal, 50 percent say they want the law repealed in full. Forty-four percent want only certain parts of it repealed.

Thirty-five percent of those who favor repeal said they would not want to see the law overturned if it meant insurers would not be required to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fifty-two percent said they would still favor repeal even if that is the case.

(Credit: CBS/AP)
Health care is not what many Americans say they want the new Congress to focus on, however. Just 18 percent say it should be the top priority for lawmakers.  A far higher percentage - 43 percent - says the most important issue is job creation. 

Just one in four Americans say the health care law, which is being phased in gradually, has helped the economy. A higher percentage - 40 percent - say it has hurt.

Only 13 percent say they have benefited from the provisions that have already gone into effect, including allowing parents to cover children on their insurance until age 26 and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Eighty-four percent say they have not yet benefited.

Only one in ten Americans say the bill's impact has been explained to them very well. A majority - 56 percent - say it has not been explained to them even somewhat well.
MORE FROM THE POLL:
Obama Approval Rating Up to 49 Percent
Poll: Most Say Deal With Deficit Now
Poll: Americans Remain Split on Gun Control
Poll: Many Want Congress to Focus on Jobs, not Health Care
Read the Complete Poll



This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,036 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone January 15 - 19, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher.

This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
Watch Washington Unplugged's political roundtable Friday with CBS News Director of Surveys Sarah Dutton and CBS Evening News Senior Producer Ward Sloane here.

Federal judge tosses out sweeping health care reform act


By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
January 31, 2011 6:30 p.m. EST
    Washington (CNN) -- A federal judge in Florida has tossed out the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama, setting up what is likely to be a contentious Supreme Court challenge over the legislation in coming months.
    Monday's sweeping ruling came in the most closely watched of the two dozen separate challenges to the law. Florida along with 25 states had filed a lawsuit last spring, seeking to dismiss a law critics had labeled "Obamacare."
    U.S. District Judge Robert Vinson declared unconstitutional the key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- the so-called "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. Vinson also declared unconstitutional the section of the act that withholds Medicare funds from states that refuse to participate.
    But unlike another federal judge who ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional last month, Vinson ruled that the unconstitutionality voided the entire act.
    "I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system," wrote Vinson.
    "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Vinson wrote, adding, "At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
    The Justice Department declared its intentions to appeal the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
    "We strongly disagree with the court's ruling today and continue to believe -- as other federal courts have found -- that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," said department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.
    "This is one of a number of cases pending before courts around the country, including several that the government has won in the district courts that are now before the courts of appeals. There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal."
    Schmaler added that the department is determining what other steps to take "including seeking a stay ... while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need."
    Sen. Marco Rubio, the Republian freshman senator from Florida, praised the ruling and called on the Senate to take up the recently approved House bill repealing the act.
    "ObamaCare was a mistake," he said. "However, we cannot leave this decision in the hands of judges alone. The Senate Democrat leadership should follow the House's lead and hold an up-or-down vote to repeal ObamaCare. The optimal outcome for Florida and the American people is to repeal the federal health care law and replace it with common-sense reforms that will lower health care costs and get more Americans insured."
    House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, agreed that the Senate should take up the repeal bill, saying it was "the easiest way to protect the American people."
    "Today's decision affirms the view, held by most of the states and a majority of the American people, that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don't," he said. "It's not only unconstitutional, it's also unaffordable. This health care law remains a major source of uncertainty for small businesses, which is why all parties involved should request that this case be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court for a swift and fair resolution."
    Newly elected Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus joined the call for the Senate to vote on repeal -- after Senate Republicans noted earlier in the day that all of them would vote in favor.
    "The new Republican House majority has already fulfilled its promise to the American people and voted to repeal this unaffordable, unconstitutional legislation and it is time for the Senate to follow suit," he said. "Senate Democrats cannot continue to defend the indefensible and keep a law on the books that is not only opposed by the American people but also raises clear constitutional concerns."
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, however, disagreed that Americans want the act repealed.
    "This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt by those who want to raise taxes on small businesses, increase prescription prices for seniors and allow insurance companies to once again deny sick children medical care," he said. "Health care reform is the law of the land and, now that Americans see its benefits, a majority of them oppose Republicans' dangerous plans to repeal a law that put patients in control of their own health care. Rather than focusing obsessively on the past and pushing a plan that will add $1 trillion to the deficit, Republicans should join Democrats in working to create jobs and strengthen the middle class."
    And Rep. Pete Stark, D-California, and ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, pointed out that Vinson's 78-page ruling went against several other district court rulings.
    "Republicans have no problems with activist judges as long as they're taking rights away from the American people," he said. "Several other judges across the country have ruled that health reform is clearly constitutional, a viewpoint that will win the day at the end of all this partisan posturing."
    The states bringing suit in this appeal are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    Virginia and Oklahoma have filed separate challenges, along with other groups and individuals opposed to the law.
    A federal judge in eastern Virginia has also found the health care law unconstitutional, while two other federal judges, one in western Virginia and one in Michigan, have ruled just the opposite. Additionally, according to the White House, 12 other federal judges have dismissed challenges to the law.
    The two judges who ruled against the law were appointed by Republican presidents; the two who ruled in favor of the law were appointed by Democratic presidents.
    Such disagreements almost ensure the high court will take up the issue. The various cases will likely have to go separate federal appeals courts before the justices would take up one or more of the cases.
    There was no indication when the Supreme Court would take the case, although it could be as soon as later this year.
    In the Florida case, opponents were targeting not only that individual mandate, but also the law's requirement that each state expand Medicaid to cover more of the low-income uninsured.
    "It's an enormous burden on the states that they never agreed to," then-Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said last month after oral arguments. The Medicaid expansion, he said, amounts to "the compulsion and coercion of the states, in violation of the 10th Amendment."
    Under the law, the federal government is supposed to pay states for most of the cost of the Medicaid expansion -- an estimated 95 percent over the first five years, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. However, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott estimated the expansion could cost his state up to $25 billion over 10 years.
    In his ruling Vinson seemed almost apologetic that he had to rule against the government on an issue he repeatedly referred to as monumental. But he said forcing Americans to buy a product like health care insurance that they may not want or need clearly violates the Constitution.
    "I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court's current interpretation and definition," he wrote. "Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that."
    President Barack Obama has said the requirement is justified for the overall good.
    "All we've said is, everybody has to get some basic insurance, so that we're not paying for you when you get sick," he said in an interview last month. "It's the right thing to do, and I'm confident that the courts will uphold it."
    The mandate on individuals to buy insurance is not scheduled to go into effect until 2014. But if that portion of the law is ultimately struck down, analysts say it would make it difficult to pay for the law's other, more popular provisions.
    In the meantime, the public will already benefit from several other provisions of the law, according to White House health care policy director Nancy-Ann DeParle. Those include requirements that insurers offer coverage to children of beneficiaries until age 26, not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and not place a lifetime cap on benefits.
    The case is Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT).


    STORY HIGHLIGHTS
    • NEW: The Justice Department says it will appeal the ruling
    • "Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority," the judge says
    • The ruling focuses on requirement that most Americans to buy health insurance by 2014
    • Florida and 25 other states filed a suit against the law last spring

    What Do Americans Really Think Of Health Care Reform Repeal?


    TPMDC

    Jon Terbush | January 21, 2011, 8:42AM




    A Tea Party protester

    In reclaiming the House last November, Republicans framed their victory as a clear mandate from the American people to scrap 'Obamacare.' A cursory scan of the polling data suggests they were right, with some polls pegging support for repeal as high as 60%.
    Yet a closer examination of the numbers reveals that the claim is considerably overblown.
    The primary problem with polling data on the issue is that surveys tend to oversimplify the debate. Many polls present respondents with just two options: repeal the whole shebang, or do nothing at all. What those polls fail to take into account is the fact that some parts of the law are widely popular, while others are disliked, and still others are unknown or misunderstood.
    For example, a CNN poll from December found broad support for the law's main provisions -- except the much maligned individual mandate. Sixty percent of respondents said they opposed the individual mandate, though larger percentages supported the provisions preventing insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions (64%) or dropping coverage for those who become seriously ill (61%.)
    All or nothing polls tend to exaggerate support for a full repeal by counting respondents who may only dislike one part of the comprehensive law.
    Rasmussen is perhaps the biggest culprit here, as they ask a direct repeal or no repeal question and allow respondents to say only whether they "strongly" or "somewhat" fall to either side. By that measure, Rasmussen pegged support for repeal at 60% in mid December, with just 34% opposing repeal. (Rasmussen has been criticized in the past, notably by Nate Silver, for using methodology that may create biased results.)
    When more nuanced wording is used, the picture changes drastically.
    As Greg Sargent noted earlier this week, a great example of this is the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, which first asked respondents if they supported or opposed the law, and then asked those who opposed or had no opinion of the law if they favored a full or partial repeal. When the results of that breakdown were factored back into the whole sample, less than one in five (18%) favored a full repeal, while more people (19%) favored a partial repeal.
    That poll isn't alone. In fact, two polls have actually found a seemingly counterintuitive result, given the supposed high support for a total repeal.
    A recent AP-GFK poll pegged support for the law at 40%, with opposition slightly higher at 41%. But when they asked if respondents would like to expand, trim, or scrap the law, or to leave it as is, a whopping 43% said they'd like to see the law do more to change the health care system. Meanwhile, 26% said they'd want it repealed entirely, and 10% said they'd prefer to see it scaled back. Similarly, when Marist presented respondents with the same options, 35% said they wanted the law to do more, while 30% wanted it repealed entirely.
    A quick look at the TPM Poll Average greatly underscores this point. With all polls factored in, support for full repeal trumps opposition, 50% to 43.4%.
    [Late Update: Since this post was published Friday morning, new polls have been entered in TPM PollTracker, which has changed the TPM Poll Average. The text of this post hasn't been changed, but the numbers in the graphs below reflect the new polls.]
    But when Rasmussen is filtered out, the opposite is true, with opposition to repeal coming out on top 46.5% to 45.5%.
    Rasmussen polls the question far more regularly than anyone else, which skews the average toward their finding.
    Despite full-throated assertions from some Republicans that the midterm elections were a complete repudiation of the health care law, that just doesn't seem to be the case. So while the House successfully passed the "Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Law Act" on Tuesday, it looks like that wasn't what Americans wanted them to do after all.



    TPMDC

    What Do Americans Really Think Of Health Care Reform Repeal?


    A Tea Party protester

    Share

    Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

    Send to a friend!

    To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

    In reclaiming the House last November, Republicans framed their victory as a clear mandate from the American people to scrap 'Obamacare.' A cursory scan of the polling data suggests they were right, with some polls pegging support for repeal as high as 60%.
    Yet a closer examination of the numbers reveals that the claim is considerably overblown.
    The primary problem with polling data on the issue is that surveys tend to oversimplify the debate. Many polls present respondents with just two options: repeal the whole shebang, or do nothing at all. What those polls fail to take into account is the fact that some parts of the law are widely popular, while others are disliked, and still others are unknown or misunderstood.
    For example, a CNN poll from December found broad support for the law's main provisions -- except the much maligned individual mandate. Sixty percent of respondents said they opposed the individual mandate, though larger percentages supported the provisions preventing insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions (64%) or dropping coverage for those who become seriously ill (61%.)
    All or nothing polls tend to exaggerate support for a full repeal by counting respondents who may only dislike one part of the comprehensive law.
    Rasmussen is perhaps the biggest culprit here, as they ask a direct repeal or no repeal question and allow respondents to say only whether they "strongly" or "somewhat" fall to either side. By that measure, Rasmussen pegged support for repeal at 60% in mid December, with just 34% opposing repeal. (Rasmussen has been criticized in the past, notably by Nate Silver, for using methodology that may create biased results.)
    When more nuanced wording is used, the picture changes drastically.
    As Greg Sargent noted earlier this week, a great example of this is the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, which first asked respondents if they supported or opposed the law, and then asked those who opposed or had no opinion of the law if they favored a full or partial repeal. When the results of that breakdown were factored back into the whole sample, less than one in five (18%) favored a full repeal, while more people (19%) favored a partial repeal.
    That poll isn't alone. In fact, two polls have actually found a seemingly counterintuitive result, given the supposed high support for a total repeal.
    A recent AP-GFK poll pegged support for the law at 40%, with opposition slightly higher at 41%. But when they asked if respondents would like to expand, trim, or scrap the law, or to leave it as is, a whopping 43% said they'd like to see the law do more to change the health care system. Meanwhile, 26% said they'd want it repealed entirely, and 10% said they'd prefer to see it scaled back. Similarly, when Marist presented respondents with the same options, 35% said they wanted the law to do more, while 30% wanted it repealed entirely.
    A quick look at the TPM Poll Average greatly underscores this point. With all polls factored in, support for full repeal trumps opposition, 50% to 43.4%.
    [Late Update: Since this post was published Friday morning, new polls have been entered in TPM PollTracker, which has changed the TPM Poll Average. The text of this post hasn't been changed, but the numbers in the graphs below reflect the new polls.]
    But when Rasmussen is filtered out, the opposite is true, with opposition to repeal coming out on top 46.5% to 45.5%.
    Rasmussen polls the question far more regularly than anyone else, which skews the average toward their finding.
    Despite full-throated assertions from some Republicans that the midterm elections were a complete repudiation of the health care law, that just doesn't seem to be the case. So while the House successfully passed the "Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Law Act" on Tuesday, it looks like that wasn't what Americans wanted them to do after all.
    • It's Pat 1 week ago
      So while the House successfully passed the "Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Law Act" on Tuesday, it looks like that wasn't what Americans wanted them to do after all.
      Alert the "liberal" media.
    • ArrivalofGodot 1 week ago
      And if you look to the right of your screen, you'll see that for the past two weeks, Ras has been the ONLY pollster to have Obama with negative approval ratings.

      Ever other poll has a plurality of respondents approving the job Obama's done. Gallup:+9. CBS/NYT:+10. ABC/WaPo:+11. Fox:...+3.

      Rasmussen is systematically biased. And they release a flood of systematically biased polls to dilute any tracking system that includes them.

    • While the author is attempting to be even handed..it would help to be as assertive within the truth as the other side panders and lies! We want our elected officials to counter the lies and distortion with force but we get an article like this milquetoast!

      Ras is never one to not do push polls to reverse engineer the answers the right wing wants but there is power in the numbers of the other polls if pushed with the same vigor !
    • rodney.hayhurst 1 week ago
      If the vote to repeal this week proved anything, it's that the right's battle cry "Will Of The People" was nothing more than a campaign slogan.
    • Cy Guy 1 week ago
      "(Rasmussen has been criticized in the past, notably by Nate Silver, for using methodology that may create biased results.) ... Rasmussen polls the question far more regularly than anyone else, which skews the average toward their finding."

      The same is true for Obama's approval rating and for the Congressional generic ballot but you run those averages on every page of the site without any caveat. Thankfully you do let people exclude pollers if they go to your polling page, but by posting the consolidated average which you know includes flawed data from Rasmussen (currently the difference to the Obama Approval rating is caused just by Rasmussen is 2.3%, and for the generic ballot 4.2%) you give casual readers skewed polling data. This is why I go to Nate Silver's site when I want polling info.

      Ironically, you have made an editorial decision to exclude "Internet polls" when their results (collectively) are much more in line the results of typical traditional polls than Rasmussen's automated poll results are.

    • bronxx13 1 week ago
      I'd like to see a poll that not only askes about the popularity of individual pieces, but also gauges the respondants' willingness to accept more undesirable aspects (i.e. - the mandate) if they enable the more desirable ones. We all know there are aspects of HCR that aren't sustainable without the wider pool theoretically generated by the mandate, so without that pool a lot of good stuff goes away. Just how willing is the public to put up with something they don't like to get something they do?
    • Wait, are you suggesting that polls actually be used to educate? Holy Heisenberg Principle Batman!
    • Mr Turbush, you can quote this skewed poll or cherry pick from that poll and daydream and engage in all the wishful thinking you want but some hard facts still remain which are at odds with your conclusions about the feeling of the American people on this issue. We'll begin with the assumption that the body of the House of representatives, overall and unarguably, have a better understanding of these feeling than you.

      In the midterms, not a single democrat representative ran on the fact they'd voted for government ran health welfare. Far and away, the greater part of the winners vowed repeal. The outcome was a landslide. The repeal passed by a wider margin than passage of the bill. Also, the repeal vote was bi-partisan.

      Harry Reid is scared to death to allow a vote for repeal in the Senate. A vote against repeal would mean certain death for so many of his democrats in the next election. He will most certainly loose control of the Senate over this issue unless he allows a vote AND repeal passes. The MSM has blown its credibility and is helpless now to bail out the cause. No one is watching.

      Elections have consequences. With the exception of wasting time, daydreams don't. The outcome of the last election, combined with economic realities, marks the end of our 80 year march down the road of socialism. Socialism's throat will be cut and it's loathsome blood drained from the body politic in the next ten years. This is not a daydream, it's reality unfolding in real time before your shuttered eyes.
    • "Also, the repeal vote was bi-partisan."

      In your world four Democrats from red states is bi-partisan?

      Also, I don't think you know what socialism is.
    • You're arguing with someone who seems to believe "socialism" is a tyrannical oppressor that deserves to be butchered.

      Clearly, said someone is not mentally stable enough to comprehend rational discourse.
    • The word "socialism" for this guy seems to be used in the context of profanity or an insult and nothing more.
    • Did you even READ the analysis presented in this article? Or is to too far away from black and white for your mind to absorb? You refer to "hard facts," and yet you present no useful facts, no statistics, no citations. I know it's scary sometimes to consider the possibility that you might be wrong, but don't fool yourself.
    • Socialism's throat will be cut and it's loathsome blood drained from the body politic in the next ten years.


      What's with the blood-thirsty rhetoric? This type of unnecessary and negative hyperbole is not representative of any majority in America. You might want to reconsider your position, as it in no way reflects the mindset of rational people.
    • Someone who claims to want to talk about "hard facts" and immediately proceeds to say "we'll begin with the assumption..." values reason less than he thinks!
    • "government ran health welfare"
      "the repeal vote was bi-partisan"
      "certain death "
      "...loose control "
      "our 80 year march down the road of socialism."
      "Socialism's throat will be cut and it's loathsome blood drained from the body politic..."

      Hello Sarah

    • Apparently the only elections that have consequences in your mind are the ones where your candidates win.
      Otherwise you must have been 100 percent behind the president and the democratic landslide in congressional elections in 2008. I seem to recall most of them running on the promise of universal health care. As far as no one running in 2010 using health care reform as a plus, it's impossible to mount a counter campaign against the 500 lb gorilla of lies and misinformation that is Fox "News".
    • If you are totally against socialism then stay off the public streets and highways. I guess we can turn out the lights on your block. Don't call the fire department or the police, they're financed by socialist policies. No more library books for you either (if you do read).
    • And no government-founded Internet either!
    • Indeed! No public education for you or your kids, don't call a cop if you need protection, and for GODSAKE, don't even think about national defense. The Army, et al, defends EVERY member of society, not just those that can afford it. Let's add to the list that he should determine the safety of his own food, determine his own levels of contamination in the water sources and be responsible for his own sewage processing....oh, wait a sec....I see now, he is trying.
    • and th elections of '06 and '08, what did they stand for? Mitch McConnell and his ilk obstructed more in last 4 years than at any time in th history of th Union. do elections only matter when conservatives tip th scales?
    • "bi-partisan" 4 Dems and what color is the sky in your world?
    • ROTFLMAO. Another batshit crazy loon has escaped
    • AnswerFrog 1 week ago
      a vote to "repeal" is effectively a vote to doom people with preexisting conditions.

      Got cancer or diabetes? Lost your job? You're on your own!

      Can't put that cat back in the bag without getting scratched.
    • I love the fact that these looney's forget the whole "with liberty and justice for all" part when they scream about the socialization of any element in our society. You know, that society that allows private business to florish because we have a socialized forum where disputes can be adjudicated equally. The very nature of our legal society, in theory, makes our social equality an even foothold so that every man can be heard without prejudice and achieve the fruits of his/her labour. It's just amazing. I say, go aheahd and man-handle that cat...not to be one to endorse violent rhetoric, I can't help but imagine the ass kicking cat with his claws OUT.
    • Dylan Henrich 1 week ago
      Is there a poll that posed the following questions?:

      Do you support the provisions preventing insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions?

      Do you support the provisions preventing insurers from dropping coverage for those who become seriously ill?

      If given the choice between an individual mandate, a public option, or a single-payer system, in order to have the above two provisions work without major increases in insurance premiums, which would you prefer?

      If none of the above, would you support raising insurance premiums to provide the two provisions mentioned above?
    • Cindy Faulkner 1 week ago
      Mr. Boehner where are the jobs?
    • Diana Saum 1 week ago
      If he could spell OR use spellcheck (which wouldn't have caught all of his errors) I might pay attention. but I prefer a more literate opinion. Thank you.
    • Polls of "Americans" mean nothing, the only poll that means anything is the one taken on election day by people who actually bother to vote. There isn't a politician in the word that cares anything abut what "Americans" think. All they care about is people who actually vote, and at least in 2010, those people are at least 60-40 for repealing the entire bill.
    • I think you like to invent numbers.
    • Yeah I'm just guessing at the 60-40 but looking at the results of the 2010 election and the prominence of many of the GOP winners running on repealing HCR it's at least an educated guess, it seems to me. What's your opinion?
    • Quit pretending you're interested in anyone's opinion but your own. And no, it is not an "educated guess." You're just making stuff up.
      (Edited by author 1 week ago)
    • I am rubber, you are glue, it bounces off me and sticks to you.
    • the point being, if that is the only question asked, then I may well be in favour of total repeal. Only because I know that SINGLE PAYER was the correct resolution to health care in this country. You really just don't get it. Many folks that felt as I do stayed home. It's going to come out in glaring light over the next 18 months, and once again, the polls will indicate what it did in '08. The little adventure in the House last week will fizzle into the news cycle. President Obama ran on Health Care reform, and he won. Game over.
    • Bingo+++
    • Red XIV 1 week ago
      Since you've acknowledge that Rasmussen is systematically biased and deliberately skews the average even further by polling more frequently than everybody else, why do you still include them in your polling average at all?
    • Or at least do what Real Clear Politics does and use only the most recent Rasmussen poll in the average.
    • youcrackpots 1 week ago
      Since when did people vote for Republicans to repeal healthcare reform? It was about jobs, stupid. Obama got beat up for health care reform because he was supposed to be concentrating on jobs. Now the Republicans are ignoring the issue that got them elected (jobs) and concentrating on the wrong thing, (healthcare reform). No wonder Republicans are dropping in the polls and Obama's numbers are going up.
    • youcrackpots 1 week ago
      The polls are worded to give a skewed result. How many polls did we see where like 65% of people didn't like the healthcare reform bill (HRC)? It didn't separate out the people who didn't like it because there was no public option, or didn't like the process but liked what was in it. There is no mandate to repeal - the mandate was to create jobs - period. Stop screwing around with HCR and do what you were elected to do.
    • leftflank 1 week ago
      I don't know, what do Americans think about wars of choice & torture? The majority absolutely disapproves while the rabid minority is all for it.
      The nuclear 18% will always be making the most noise, regardless of the issue.