Poll: Bush Gains On Children’s Health Insurance Debate
As Democrats prepare to push a more-likely-than-not doomed vote on the children’s health care issue again, they have received good news and bad news from a new USA Today poll on the issue.
The GOOD NEWS is that Americans trust the Demmies more on the kids health care issue. The BAD NEWS is that President George Bush appears to be winning the larger debate on the issue:
A majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the issue of children’s health insurance more than President Bush, but they agree with the president that government aid should not go to middle-income families or those with private insurance, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows.
Three days before the Democratic-controlled House attempts to override Bush’s veto of a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the poll shows that Americans’ opinions on the issue are mixed.
Of those polled, 52% said they have more confidence in Democrats to deal with the issue, compared with 32% for Bush. But majorities also supported two positions at the core of the president’s opposition:
•A slim majority, 52%, agreed with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level — about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% said benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.
•A larger majority, 55%, said they were concerned that the program creates an incentive for families to drop private health coverage for a public program. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care. Only 42% said that wasn’t a concern.
Taken together, the results show that while Bush may be losing the political battle with Democrats, he may be winning the policy debate.
There’s a tendency on the part of partisans to accept polls they agree with as wonderful, accurate, and right-on-the-dime — and to suddenly question the methodology of polls that don’t agree with them. A previous poll showed Americans 70 percent in favor of this plan. There could indeed have been a significant shift on the particulars, although more will be known as more polls come out, since in polling the key is to see if there is a trend, by looking at a bunch of polls on a given issue or person.
But, taken together, this cannot be great news for the Democrats who are pressing the plan. It clearly means the issue as of today is not entirely a “slam dunk.” Ed Morrissey writes:
Democrats have gone on a full-court press to get this legislation passed, and then to get the veto overridden. They have used two families as fronts for the expansion, even though the children of both families qualified for S-CHIP prior to their expansion. They are running ads even now, showing toddlers with large, staring eyes, that claim “George Bush vetoed Susie,” and so on.
And they have lost the argument. Despite Bush’s low polling numbers and their political advantage on domestic policy, the Democrats have not convinced Americans to subsidize health insurance for middle-class families. In fact, the USA Today poll used the less-outrageous annual income limit of $62,000 for the description of the expansion (some have it at $83,000), and Democrats still lose, 52%-40%. It isn’t even close.
Still, the debate and outcome is hardly settled.
The next vote will likely fail as well (there has been little likelihood that the Demmies would peel off enough votes to override Bush’s veto).
But this is a debate that will go BEYOND political institutions and politicos, no matter what they do: the children’s health insurance issue could have a significant impact on the 2008 elections not just due to partisan advertising but because follow-up stories will be irresistible to any editor.
As we’ve noted here before, editors LOVE “plight stories.” And when this vote fails, look for newspapers and broadcast outlets to continue to follow this issue with human interest plight stories detailing:
–Kids and youths in states who can’t get medical coverage because the vote cut off monies they receive now. According to news reports, some people in some states will be cut off from existing funding.
–Kids and youths who are seriously ill but can’t get medical coverage when this bill might have covered them.
The Democrats can (and will) then use these news stories in their ads. And each of these people who can’t get medical care because they lost their funding or can’t get what they might have gotten also have friends and relatives.
So the political and intellectual debate over the issue is on one level. The other, perhaps more profound level, will be what appears in the news media — and that can’t be good news for Republicans heading into 2008. Democrats are probably hoping that GOPers will breathe a sigh of relief when the vote is done or in seeing polls such as this one.
The debate won’t be over due to failed votes or sagging polls. It will continue via media coverage and scrutiny of a rare Bush veto’s impact bolstered by enough Republicans to sustain it — and it’s likely to influence public perceptions going into 2008.
OF ADDITIONAL INTEREST:
—SCHIP Scheme: Don’t Use Children As Pawns
—Veto May Harm (North Carolina) Insurance Program
—Christian Science Monitor: The Politics Of Kids’ Health
—More Children to Get Health Coverage? Republicans Say “No Way!”
—Politicians make health care bill very muddy
— For sake of kids’ health, override Bush veto
—No matter what, president gets the final say
26 Responses to “Poll: Bush Gains On Children’s Health Insurance Debate”
The first poll response is neither surprising nor troubling for Democrats. Who doesn’t believe poorer people should be a higher priority for government-paid health care than the middle class? The question’s wording stimulated that response.
The second question is more troubling as it repeats a common GOP meme that SCHIP will convince people to abandon private insurance for government insurance. Of course, the real question is: how much of a “concern” is it that people move toward government insurance? Again, the question is worded to elicit concern as if the uninformed poll respondent is supposed to recognize a potential problem. Had the poll asked respondents how bothered they were by the CONSEQUENCES of people moving toward government-funded insurance, you would have a more interesting result.
I went back and looked at the actual poll (I didn’t realize the poll results were on the same link) and my sentiments are confirmed. The GOP is “very concerned” about the consequences of encouraging middle class people to abandon private health insurance. Each and every GOP politician opposing SCHIP would say that. But only 22 percent of respondents are “very concerned.” 33 percent are “somewhat” concerned and the rest not really concerned at all. I’d say most Americans do not buy the Bushian or GOP argument on this question.
As for the first question, the wording is actually quite deceiving. This is how it is worded:
“As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?”
The truth is actually both sides are right. Under the Democratic plan, most of the increases will go to those earning under $41,000. But it will ALSO provide funding for families making as much as $62,000 – yet this is not where “most of the increases” will go, according to any analysis I’ve seen. So the question poses a false dichotomy.
[...] the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Clark Poll: Bush Gains On Children’s Health Insurance Debate » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
Elrod – What?!? USA Today ran a biased poll!? I’m shocked!
Now watch the “liberal” media try to convince us that, “hey, everyone’s opposed to SCHIP! See the poll? It turns out the President’s arguments really were persuasive! Why are you out of step with the mainstream?” …sigh… We’ll see if people buy it. They probably will, support will dry up, and the Dems will be blamed anyway for not getting it done. What’s wrong with those Democrats, anyway!?
Re: SCHIP. I have two problems with these kinds of programs, these “help the neediest” programs:
1. They create “perverse incentives,” penalizing people for improving their economic condition by taking away benefits. That’s bad for getting the poor to help themselves. This is a classic economist’s argument, but it’s logical and seems borne out to some extent, but that’s just what I read.
2. OK, so we have a program for lower-middle class to poor people. First our beautifully independent-thinking public (sarcasm) says, “Well, don’t want those middle classers who don’t need it using public funds…” So they restrict the program to the really poor people. Then they say, “Well, why don’t these poor people help themselves? These welfare queens are living off the dole, this program’s created perverse incentives! We need to scrap this program!” So it goes – soon we’re living in Grover Norquist’s Social-Darwinian wet-dream, yippee.
That’s why I support universal programs, like Social Security. I think we should have all sorts of programs available on an all-contribute, all-can-use basis: health care, day care. It creates a stable social backbone that helps steady our country, things like the school system, fire, police, public parks, etc. And I easily admit that government programs have problems, but I believe the benefits would outweigh the costs for the vast, vast majority of Americans.
And compared to the USA, almost every other developed nation has many more of those kinds of programs! Why don’t we? I think part of it is greed, the mediated neuroticism of the middle class that they believe they or their kids are going to become CEOs, so they should keep tax rates down. But mainly, I think it’s that folks don’t want to give money to the n*gg*rs. Seriously, I believe that that’s largely what it boils down to, and I think it’s shameful and pathetic the way we hide it with talk about efficiency and small government.
Of course, sustained effort at self-improvement on all our parts, then giving that hope and strength to our neighbors, is the only way to change our collective pathologies. Pretty cool how I expressed that without mentioning God, ain’t it? Don’t want to seem preachy, ya know… oops…
[...] Original post here [...]
First, what does ‘concern’ mean?
That they are against the bill? That they don’t understand it’s implications and are concerned that something bad is lurking there? That they are concerned about the overall costs? What?
One trouble, with simple-mindededly (whether on purpose or by accident) worded polls is that they influence subsequent public opinion: if other people are concerned, maybe I should be, too.
Some points about the bill clearly are still misunderstood..
Those dropping private insurance to sign on to SCHIP are often those who have bare-bones private coverage entailing out of pocket costs they can’t
afprd/ Many then face the choice between going bankrupt and ending up on even costlier govenrment programs or foregoing medical care to risk cutting off their productive value to themselves and to society.
Fiscal responsiblity can’t be done on a day to day basis. Spending more today, like bulk buying, can save more over the long haul.
I see that many are determined to take the short-sighted view and prefer to incur greater costs in the future.
[...] Joe Gandelman wrote an interesting post today on Poll: Bush Gains On Children’s Health Insurance DebateHere’s a quick excerptA majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the issue of children’s health insurance more than President Bush, but they agree with the president that government aid should not go to middle-income families or those with private … [...]
Of course, the other question that the Democratic Party has to run away from is how they can support open borders and unlimited immigration while support expansion of entitlement programs?
How soon will there be stories of anchor babies being enrolled in S-CHIP? Of course, since those families will all eventually be Democratic party voters, my guess is that the left of center politicians will be happy that illegal aliens are enrolled in the program.
[...] on the losing side of the argument regarding Bush’s SCHIP veto. And though there may be some discrepancies amongst the electorate, by and large Americans simply trust Democrats better on the issue. Thus far [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman wrote an interesting post today on Poll: Bush Gains On Children’s Health Insurance DebateHere’s a quick excerptA majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the issue of children’s health insurance more than President Bush, but they agree with the president that government aid should not go to middle-income families or those with private … [...]
[...] also Joe’s wrap-up [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman wrote an interesting post today on Poll: Bush Gains On Children’s Health Insurance DebateHere’s a quick excerptA majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the issue of children’s health insurance more than President Bush, but they agree with the president that government aid should not go to middle-income families or those with private … [...]
Superdestroyer-
Tax the rich, lol.
My view: let them eat braised free-range duck breast on a bed of organic quinoa and microgreen salad with a less expenseive merlot! Damn I’m heartless. Just don’t understand how the world work, us pinkos, suggesting inefficient uses of funds like that.
BTW I feel for the working-class Americans who are being displaced by illegal labor, but just hating on the immigrants, the only people poorer and more powerless, is ugly. What about the bosses holding out the jobs that bring them across the border?
-bjb
How about Mexico passing minimum wage laws so US corporations who move down there can’t exploit their workers? Globalization is in part, causing the influx. And SD, a lot of Democrats don’t want open borders, but the issue has been demagogued here to incite xenophobic fury. I refuse to be angry at desperate, poor Mexicans- yes they are breaking our law- but if you are a Christian you should have more compassion for your fellow man.
“My view: let them eat braised free-range duck breast on a bed of organic quinoa and microgreen salad with a less expenseive merlot! Damn I’m heartless. ”
That’s funny. On newsdays filled with the usual and
unusual mayhem, appreciate starting this morning w
a ‘puter screen dripping coffee. Thanks b_j
Dr.e
BV-J
What should we expect private employers to do something that the government is not allowed to do? Private Employers cannot profile, cannot ask about legal status and can only ask for a non-photo, non-secure form of identification.
If the government cannot ask for a photo ID to vote and cannot ask about citizenship and immigration status when arresting someone, then why should employers do it?
When the government gets serious about identifying illegal immigration, then the government can be credible in asking the private sector to do it. However, looking at recent rulings from the federal bench, the borders are probably going to get more open rather than less since the federal courts have ruled that the government cannot investigate ID theft.
Here’s hoping you aren’t an employer. Because it’s obvious you’ve never completed an I-9 form.
But on the outside chance that you might one day have to certify employment eligibility for someone I’ll do you a favor.
Valid Documents For Form I-9
[...] Original post by Joe Gandelman [...]
[...] pathologies. Pretty cool how I expressed that without mentioning God, ain’t it? Don’t Read Full Article From Source Rome News-Tribune – Self Improvement news.mywebpal.com/Rssfeeds/680/new/Self Improvement.xml [...]
SD-
You may be right (though I think you’re exagerating). But! Looking at the current dynamics of the immigration debate, it’s the rich Republicans who are trying hardest to keep the government from cracking down on illegal immigration. Ignoring the role of these businessmen in the current immigration situation is silly, especially when the rallying cry is “The Law is The Law! Deport the Illegals!” If the law’s the law, why are you defending people who illegally hired undocumented aliens? And why shoud really really dirt-poor, pondscum poor immigrants have such hatred spewed at them when the law they broke had been treated for decades like jay-walking?
I sympathize with the poor everywhere, and support reforming immigration laws and trade agreements to help protect Americans, since that’s what we can do and our responsibility is for those closest to us. But I don’t make room for hatred, at least in this case. Ask me again on a different issue, lol.
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] from Kim Priestap [...]
[...] the details here This entry was posted on Monday, October 15th, 2007 at 10:04 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. [...]
[...] here for full story This entry was posted on Monday, October 15th, 2007 at 10:04 pm and is filed under [...]
[...] handle the issue of childrens health insurance more than President Bush, but they agree source: Poll: Bush Gains On Childrens Health I…, The Moderate Voice Domestic and international news [...]