Poll: Town Hall Protests Increase Anti-Health Care Support Particulary Among Independents
A new Gallup poll finds that the angry Town Hall protests against President Barack Obama’s health care reform are scoring points for the anti-health care side — and picking up support among independent voters.
As we’ve noted here often, independent voters are not a monolithic block and in recent years some pollsters and analysts have contended that part of the reason for the increase in independent voter numbers has been due to Republicans who were not happy about the direction of their country. But it’s unlikely these numbers can be attributed entirely to that. As we reported yesterday, a Marist poll also found Obama’s independent voter support is eroding.
In polling, the trending is important and this latest poll coupled with the Marist poll suggest a shift:
The raucous protests at congressional town-hall-style meetings have succeeded in fueling opposition to proposed health care bills among some Americans, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — particularly among the independents who tend to be at the center of political debates.
In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say demonstrations at the hometown sessions have made them more sympathetic to the protesters’ views; 21% say they are less sympathetic.
Independents by 2-to-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now.
The findings are unwelcome news for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, who have scrambled to respond to the protests and in some cases even to be heard. From Pennsylvania to Texas, those who oppose plans to overhaul the health care system have asked aggressive questions and staged noisy demonstrations.
These numbers are also going to assure that the Town Halls will continue as they have unfolded since despite the debate over the tone, what it means for discussion, if it’s shifting some polling numbers health care reform opponents will figure “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” in terms of the protests. And if poll numbers continue to slide it will reduce Obama’s clout on this issue and make members of Congress up for re-election become skittish.
NBC’s First Read’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg give this take on a Town Hall yesterday:
While the focus of all these town-hall meetings across the country has been on health care, what has become clear is that the anger and frustration in the debate is about much more than that. Yesterday, one of us attended Sen. Ben Cardin’s (D) town hall in Hagerstown, MD, which is in a county McCain won but a state Obama overwhelmingly carried. The town hall had it all — shouting, shoving, at least one threat of pressing charges, two confrontations on race outside the town hall and people walking around with Obama-as-Hitler signs. At least the three-quarters of the crowd didn’t vote for Obama and said they would never vote for him. They were irritated with the direction of the country after the 2008 election, with a man as president they didn’t vote for, and with a Congress ruled by Democrats. They were angry with being out of power and having — because of being in the minority — what they felt was no say.
…. But there was no indication that these folks were so-called “Astroturf” grassroots supporters. There were many who were affiliated with the tea parties and even LaRouchies likening Obama to Hitler. One LaRouche organizer said he was there to “cause some trouble.” There also were some Obama supporters, who came, they said, because of being frustrated at what they’d seen on TV and were encouraged to come out by either MoveOn or Organizing for America. For many of the frustrated, there was real desperation in their voices — the belief, almost to the brink of tears, that the country is going to the pits. They are the true believers. They were also big-time Fox News viewers and Glenn Beck disciples, hammering home the perception that this is where these people get their news, er, information. One mother-daughter combo — unprompted — enthusiastically boasted, “Fox rules!” “It’s all we ever watch!”
Bill Clinton tried to repair health care, failed and never totally recovered politically. Is Obama destined for the same double-whammy fate?
43 Responses to “Poll: Town Hall Protests Increase Anti-Health Care Support Particulary Among Independents”
Well finally a poll reflects reality..lol..
The reason we independant types don't appear to be a “cohesive block” is because we don't think and behave like herd animals. We're more like goats than sheep. Sheep ball up in a herd and stick very close to one another for the dogs working them. You put dogs on goats and they scatter every different direction and stubbornly refuse to ball up. I've always liked goats better, they're smart even if fencing them in seems to be a 24/7 job to keep up with.
We are a cohesive block in that our mantra is “don't fence me in”. We think with our heads. We are pragmatists. So catch-phrases and following leaders blindly just aren't in the forte'. We realize that unchecked capitalism almost always degrades to monopolies and greed…greed that can harm our country. We also realize that too much government can lead to too much power over us. We weigh each issue carefully, thoughtfully. In short we are a political strategist's nightmare..lol..
And yes, the town hall thuggery just cements us in our stubborn views that the GOP and their never-ending agenda that uses a front of religious purity to hide its evil is something to be resisted. I
I can't speak for all independants…naturally…lol…but lets just say I loosely herded up our mindset for ya'll to digest. And for you spindoctors, take an extra dose of Pepto Bismol.
If a person is against reform for non-idiotic reasons, that is important and cause for concern. If a person can be swayed for or against reform for purely idiotic or undefined reasons, he or she is completely insignificant. I'm tired of the complete relativism that is sweeping democratic nations. Apparently, everyone's opinion is worth just as much anyone else's. But it isn't – only your vote in elections matter, and any democratic congressman with a brain knows that the cute nervosa some people feel about reform – when they listen to the utterly shallow and emotional furor whipped up by some – will not translate into problems in the midterms.
If reform goes through, it will be an important first step that can be tested on its own merits – if it doesn't kill all the kittens in America passing health-care reform will not reflect badly on any democrat.
If reform fails, then the rich and well-off will once again have succeeded in duping the working class into nobly accepting what is sure to be another decade of a dire dire system in the name of “standing up to the deathpanels”.
The reason a good reform bill hasn't already passed is not because the population is informed and in debate over what the bill should look like. If the blue dogs didn't have lobbyists around their necks reform would have already been passed.
The reason a good reform bill hasn't already passed is no one has put one forth.
They are always over-extended land grabs, ideological in nature, more interested in power, control and mandates than actually improving medical care and making it more accessible and less costly.
Reform is now a land grab?
I'm confused now, but still not enough to go shout at someone at a town hall meeting.
Of course all reform is not a land grab. But all attempts at health care reform by the past two democratic administrations were, and I was clearly talking about health care reform.
So in this case, yes, reform is a land grab (the term is used as a metaphor for the taking of more power away from the private sector and forcibly, through law, giving it to the public sector. Don't want you any more confused that you are).
I am still trying to grasp the self-negating connotation of building support for anti-healthcare reform. Would that mean that people want it to be worse?
Just wait a few years, it will get worse.
Thats because the very nature of health care is ideological, and insurance even more so. In order for insurance to be effective over a extended time you have to have everyone insured and paying premiums. Otherwise the equation becomes unbalance over time and costs rise. In order to have everyone participate you will need a mandate. There is simply no other option as time goes to infinity. Either you have a “socialized” system or you have No System. Long term the math doesn't allow you to have a hybrid without hyper-inflation sometime down the line.
What needs to be done is someone i.e. the President or other authority figure need to come up with a minimum standard of care, and a cost associated with it. then divide the cost of said care evenly among the population. Increase the taxation rate to cover it or institute a universal copay. i.e. $20 or so. Lets say that covers 4 doctor visits 2 specialist visits and $100 worth of prescriptions or services a month.
In addition, If you want more care you can buy it out of pocket.
Hey, the SEIU is getting tired of the long bus rides and matching tshirts. We need more “grassroots” supporters…..get off the computer and make money at the same time!……
The website's large-type headline announces: “Work to Pass Obama's Healthcare Plan and Get Paid to Do it! $10-15 hr!”
It's a web ad on Craigslist: “You can work for change. Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 a week.”
The ad links to the Boston-based Fund for the Public Interest, an umbrella organization that rounds up people to round up support, money and signatures for all kinds of campaigns, including healthcare reform and the environment.
lurxst -
People do not want it to be worse. But they (we) think the current efforts will make it worse than doing nothing.
I for one would love to see a reform package that didn't start from the position of, “Hi, we're the Federal Government, and we are going to take control of health care.”
And don't claim that is not the end-game of what ObamaCare is intended to accomplish. People have seen through the Trojan Horse aspect of this effort. Hence, the rejection and opposition.
Thats because the very nature of health care is ideological
Say what?? I apologize in advance for a personal attack, but that may be the single stupidest thing posted on this debate I have heard yet.
Silly ass me. I thought the nature of health care is making sick people as well as possible, and reducing their suffering when necessary.
I guess I missed the new version of Hippocratic Oath, where it references economic and political systems of delivery of health care.
If reform fails, then the rich and well-off will once again have succeeded in duping the working class into nobly accepting what is sure to be another decade of a dire dire system… – Kastanj
Exactly. The name “independent” conjures up images of people who think for themselves, and some of them are indeed that. Unfortunately, a fair portion of them are little more than indecisive fence-sitters who are capable of blowing around in any strong wind.
I have come to accept that what we are going to see will be small incremental change and not the sweeping reform that is really needed. I believe that getting a public option onto the market is a small step in the right direction and the federally subsidized program will eventually grow to really compete and drive out the healthcare profiteers. But that is the least I can support. Everything else is a giveaway to insurance corporations, who, by virtue of having no soul, will do everything in their power to continue their ghastly profit grabs, leaving people to flap in the wind and die without access to regular affordable care.
Like I said, its only a matter of years. The uninsured pool will grow larger and larger until maybe eventually, their voice will be louder than the insurance company's $1.4 million a day megaphone. Insurance companies will drop you like a psychotic lover when your costs exceed their secret threshold, no matter how much you have paid in and no matter how good you think your coverage is. 50 million strong and growing every day. Not to mention those who technically have health insurance but its a sky high deductible plan that still demands that they pay $5000-$8,000 a year for their family. And the insurance company still will drop them, given the excuse.
After so many years of Republican mismanagement, its no surprise that people are wary of federal involvement in healthcare. If republicans ever regain a presidency or a congressional majority, people have every right to fear a massive politization (sp?) of healthcare services.
Do any of the plans propose that care will be delivered by Federal employees? Aren't we in fact going to see the same providers involved in delivery? How come people cling to their medicare benefits if they are so crappy?
I would actually expect more transparency from the government program, certainly more than what insurance plans currently offer. What good is a transparent Trojan Horse?
Independent <> Informed
Independent <> Intelligent
IMO…if your opinion is changed by a bunch of people screaming at town hall meetings, you never had well thought out opinion in the first place.
Although its been labeled as healthcare debate, it seems that a lot of the protestors at townhall meetings seem to be protesting more than healthcare. They seem more upset that they lost an election and now have a black man as president. Sad.
All I can say is that the Republican Party is being successful at discrediting the healthcare bill and Obama. Too bad they have to use outright lies and continue to promote the “us v. them” mentality of the Bush administration in order to achieve their destructive end.
No, AR. It isn't about helping sick people for many people, including yourself, at least according to everything you post here. You have a limit on what you are willing to “tolerate” in the name of helping the sick. It doesn't matter how inefficient they are, how much of the money that should be helping the patient is directed instead to corporate profits and executive compensation, you are completely unwilling to admit that corporate medicine and its demands for large enough profits to keep Wall Street happy cannot accomplish what is necessary for us to have a health care system that cares more about the patient than the bucks.
The only reforms that the ideologically driven are willing to tolerate are ones that for all intents and purposes leave the current system in place no matter how many failings it has. A reform package could pass that meets all your criteria and when it fails miserably you would still blame the government because nothing bad can be the fault of the free market and corporations.
Jim -
My comment is absolutely correct, as were my other comments.
You, like most liberals it seems, confuse 'health care' with 'insurance'. “Is health care a right” is a political question, but is not about health care itself, it is about who pays. The same is true for ObamaCare.
All you seem to care about is taking the money and redistributing it as you see fit. i.e., socialized medicine.
“Of course all reform is not a land grab. But all attempts at health care reform by the past two democratic administrations were, and I was clearly talking about health care reform.”
Note also the nature of the progressive misconduct by the Dems this year, prior to this health care misconduct.
“I guess I missed the new version of Hippocratic Oath”
At least when it comes to the Dems' rushing to Do Something about everything, harmfully!
“People have seen through the Trojan Horse aspect of this effort.”
As I've correctly said more than once before, this is a Trojan Horse with neon signs and loud sounds to alert everybody. (It's simply the incrementalist, indirect approach they chose this time rather than seek to give Medicare to children first, or absorb Medicaid into Medicare first, or other incrementalist measures.)
* * *
“I am still trying to grasp the self-negating connotation of building support for anti-healthcare reform. Would that mean that people want it to be worse?”
No, obviously. The self-negating connotation you list is illogical.
There is no “need” [sic] to rush stupidly (or to childishly demand) to do something, Anything, NOW! which is likely to make things worse (as this Dem effort does, though there are several other things wrong with it as well that justify opposition or rejection). There is no “obligation” [sic], no “imperative” [sic] that we need rush to do something now, much less act to make things worse rather than better, obviously.
And as much as Jim hates us, he (and his fellow liberals) just can't seem to live without us, can he?Otherwise, why don't they just set up the “Nationalized Insurance Company, a nonprofit organization.”
They could set it up with all of the features they want. They would have a huge morbidity advantage, a huge pool of participants to drive provider discounts and of course, NIC would not be allowed to earn a surplus.
Their only problem seems to be they are unwilling to pay their own premiums.
“All I can say is that the Republican Party is being successful at discrediting the healthcare bill and Obama.”
??? The Republican Party has largely been on the sidelines, not just sidelined by the Dems in Congress but overall. It has widely conceded that health insurance and perhaps even health care form is needed, but has no clout in Washington and isn't being cooperated with, and remains dysfunctional, anyway.
1994 was not a surprise to the public but was to the stupid chattering class. Some now say that with the misbehavior of the Dems with health care (the effort is defective in a number of ways, and the Dems have misbehaved repeatedly this year, ever-increasingly badly) that another 1994 could happen in 2010, but I'm not convinced of this — that is how much the Republicans have been sidelined not only by the Dems in the Congress but by themselves, still. (Not to mention how the liberal media hinder their efforts, of course.)
“And as much as Jim hates us, he (and his fellow liberals) just can't seem to live without us, can he?”
Universality is the eventual objective. It would then be the “private option” that would truly be loathed.
I do suspect, C.O., that you realize that you answered your own question earlier.
Namely,
Q: as much as Jim hates us, he (and his fellow liberals) just can't seem to live without us, can he?
A: they are unwilling to pay their own premiums
as much as Jim hates us -DLS
I saw nothing in Jim's post to suggest “hate”. That is your word, and as such is in line with your general MO of trying to lower the standards for discussion; this would include your Nazi references, etc.
just can't seem to live without us
You are no doubt confusing ubiquitous presence with desire for said presence.
As a health care “sheep” not knowing as much about the issue, i'll go ahead and just say this: the GOP did nothing to help our situation for 8 years and yet demand that they be heard now that someone wants to do something. As far as I am concerned, I will not care what the GOP has to offer considering the last 8 years. Ignorant, yes. A purely capitalist society will fail, as will a purely socialist society. Capitalist healthcare is a freaking joke, so as far as I am concerned letting the government try its hand sounds like a really great idea, and to heck with the opposition when they tell me nothing is wrong or only small changes are needed.
With that said, this debate is pointless. Had the Republicans done a better job leading the last 8 years this issue would have never come up. Instead, you still have 70% of the population (around there anyways) that disapprove of the GOP and anything they do. These supposedly grassroots townhall screamfests make me want socialized healthcare even more knowing that they're largely Fox News fanatics with too much time on their hands and little thoughts of their own. Obamacare is going to pass eventually, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. Obama and the dems still have the momentum and still have majority as far as followers go. So let these “independents” go back to the GOP now that they realize change means change.
Lots of “Independents” are former Republicans who left the party because it ceded the low-spending title it earned in 1980 and 1994. Obviously those hard-core fiscal conservatives were not going to become liberal Democrats, though some may have voted for Obama simply out of protest against the GOP. Still, these are not and were never undecided on the health care reform question. They opposed it from Day One.
A better question – and I'm not sure if this could even be polled – is: “If these protests make you less likely to support Obama's health care initiative, were you undecided on the matter beforehand? Or did these protests reinforce and strengthen views you already had?” My guess is that if such poll question could be asked and answered honestly, the number of people whose views changed because of the protests would be close to zero. In other words, the protesters are not convincing anybody to oppose reform. They just serve as the “Amen Corner” for those already opposed to reform and frustrated at the non-existence of Republican leadership opposing it.
There are about 35% of Americans vehemently and ideologically against Obama's health care plans. There are plenty on top of that 35% who disapprove of Obama's handling of the issue, but many of those come from the Left frustrated that Obama is not pushing Congress hard enough. Obama did win 53% of the vote and most of that vote supports strong health care reform. The notion that that support suddenly morphed into Paul/Larouche far-right libertarian lunacy is not believable. These are simply different groups of people we're talking about.
The real issue is the pressure it will have on Congress. If Congress passes a semi-significant health care bill, the Democrats will reap serious rewards. The 35% will scream and holler, but the rest of the country will move on…or even celebrate. If Congress scraps health care reform, the Democrats will get routed like 1994. People forget that a major driver behind the 1994 election was the demoralization of liberals at Congress's failure to pass health care reform. Why vote for those bozos if they can't get anything done? Considering how razor-thin many of those 1994 elections were I bet at least half the Democrats would have kept their seats had the liberals not stayed home. If this Congress again fails to pass any sizable health reform package, expect liberals to stay home again, and the vulnerable Blue Dogs to get hit the hardest. Somehow I gather that the Blue Dogs know this, however. They will hem and haw for incremental adjustments to garner “cost savings” and will vote for the bill in the end – or at least enough of them will vote for it to pass. Failure = early retirement for the Blue Dogs.
Shannonlee ” IMO…if your opinion is changed by a bunch of people screaming at town hall meetings, you never had well thought out opinion in the first place. “
Very well said Shannon!
What! This is crazy. Those protestors are totally irrational and if they were any other race but white, the entire media coverage would be different.
The big insurance companies are really proud of them all
America your racism is showing.
It's really hard being a loud-mouthed, T-shirt-wearing, soft-spoken, grass-roots, Nazi-sign waving, Brooks Brothers suit-wearing member of the angry-Republican-mob-base-supporting, astroturfed RINO lobby of activist-hating activists from Hell
elrod, “Lots of “Independents” are former Republicans who left the party…”
Which reminds me… Ronald Reagan was a Democrat until he left the Republican Party in 1962 (or so). He claimed that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, but that the Democratic Party left him. He was against socialized medicine and wanted a limited government. Which is fine.
But then wasn't it in the mid-60's when Medicare and Medicaid passed under a Democratic president? And the beneficiaries are Americans from all political parties. Republicans who rail against an expanding government and against anything “socialist” and who nonetheless enjoy the benefits of Medicare (and social security) don't want to give it up their health benefits.
The real issue is that people don't want to pay for someone else's insurance. Yet that's the very nature of insurance…. I went for years paying for health insurance without ever taking advantage of the benefits. And the money I paid in went to people who had expensive operations, medicaitons, etc. But I expect that when I do need my insurance that it will be there and provide the same benefits for me.
Anyone (at least most people) who has insurance is already paying for medical treatments for others, at least unless you're one of the people who have expensive medical requirements.
The idea of not wanting “socialized healthcare” is odd, since insurance is a form of that. Just not run by the government, but by private companies who try to earn as much money for their shareholders as possible.
“That is your word” [additional misstatements deleted for quality control]
As usual, you're wrong again. I was quoting Austin Roth to prepare what I actually had to say myself…
* * *
“The real issue is the pressure it will have on Congress.”
It depends on how much sanity remains in the Senate, and what attention finally is seriously paid to paying for whatever eventually is sought. Obviously the public is objecting more and more to what it keeps learning about overreach in addition to the sloppy and silly-hurry manner of the House bill we've observed already. There's a lot that needs to be removed, reduced, or at least seriously re-throught.
“The real issue is that people don't want to pay for someone else's insurance. Yet that's the very nature of insurance”
What's being addressed is _health_care_, not health insurance only. It's more like treating health care like any other government-funded project, through taxes (like “socialized roads” or like the Post Office).
I also won't accept the dishonest label “social insurance” that's just a deceptive euphemism, as it is in the case of old-age payments by Social Security; obviously growing old is not something that people ordinarily avoid and don't experience, the kind of event addressed by insurance, _by_definition_. (Note the distinction between old-age payments and true Social Security _disability_ insurance.)
@@The real issue is that people don't want to pay for someone else's insurance. Yet that's the very nature of insurance….@@
Not true in the absolute if you are on an individually rated plan. Your premiums will rise with your experience and health profile. You may get the benefit of a timing difference for awhile but not forever. A group policy will disguise the individual's cost even longer because employers tend to absorb the adverse experience in their share. But all group plans today are experience rated as well. The 2 big distinctions as to why I accept the private insurance pooling concept though, is that at least everyone is paying something……there are no permanent freeloaders as there are in public option. Secondly, everyone starts out on an relatively equal footing. Most of the morbidity pre-65 is either prescreened out or left to be totally random. In your favored approach, you are going to be a vacuum cleaner for adverse selection.
These 2 distinctions will be a loss cost differential of somewhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion a year. Hardly suggestive of being the same model as existing private insurance.
“My comment is absolutely correct, as were my other comments.”
My point was that while you made the statement I responded to, your other comments don't seem to support the most recent one. Again and again you support the existing system. You are never clear on what changes you would support, except for the same old tired ones that have been Republican staples for years. States have had tort reform. It never helped like the Republicans claimed it would. Yet they still claim that tort reform would make a huge difference in spite of the facts that don't support that.
No, I don't confuse health care with insurance. I recognize that the insurance model is a failure. The free market is incapable of taking care of the problems with our health care system. You will never admit this. You will never come close to admitting this. Your religious faith in the First Church of Free Market is too strong.
@@The free market is incapable of taking care of the problems with our health care system.@@
Since we already know what you consider to be the problems of our health care system…………….correct, the free market was never designed to provide free lunches.
CO knows nothing of what I consider the problem(s) of our system and apparently, based on his posts, very little else, either.
Whatever happens with healthcare, heallth insurance, etc. there will be people i nall political parties who benefit.
“That is your word” [additional misstatements deleted for quality control] As usual, you're wrong again.” – DLS
CO was the original quote but as you borrowed it twice to further your mischaracterizations I felt you were more deserving of the correction.
Jim -
Actually, I think it is the mandating of insurance in the first place that broke the medical system.Medical covereage has not been a free market system since the goverenment first started forcing compaines to provide health coverage.
I need time to put together a long a detailed post to make all my points, as this synopis simply doesn't have the depth to cover all the nuances, and I am sure you will attack, but I just don't have that time now.
But as government forced insurance coverages on larger and larger groups, first by mandating coverage based on company size, then hours worked, etc., costs went up, and as the market will do, companies looked to reduce those spiraling costs to remain competitive. That lead directly to more and more part-time employees (yes, that is the government's fault for incentizing companies to do just that)
You see that as evil capitalism; I see that as companies needing to stay competitive.
Each time the government has tried to force the insurance issue further down the chain, costs have gone up more, benefits and quality have gone down.
Yet now we are told to believe that by giving the government even more ability to force insurance coverage (and when you will be fined if you don't have it, it is indeed being forced), that miraculously this time costs will go down, and coverage will get better.
You have to believe in fairy tales to think that, and ignore history. I do neither.
For decades Europe has been a beneficiary of excellent nationwide health care. It wasn't until the early 1960's that the English/British single payer system started to erode. This was caused be the introduction of legal immigration imported to drive London Buses and work on the railways. Deterioration has increased since the inception of the European Parliament dictates of the free flow of immigrants from impoverished nations of Northern Europe that has overrun the health care system. When I lived in England their was no co-pays, deductions or premiums, just insurance stamps that the employer and employee paid. I received 3 surgeries with no further cost to me. There was no anguish about debt collectors calling or ending up in front of a bankruptcy judge. As a child and a young man I choose my doctor and received eye and dentistry visits free of charges. One should remember that there a large majority of nefarious special interest groups, who enjoy the status quo and will fight with propaganda and lies against their profiteering.
Brittanicus,
Health care got more expensive because medicine is a lot more sophisticated now. The technology out there to save a heart attack victim did not exist as recently as 1985. Yet, it's very expensive.
More than immigrants, administrative waste, frivolous tort or corrupt fee-for-service arrangements, it's the “miracle of modern medicine” that makes it so expensive. And there is little we can do about it. We live longer today and expect successful treatment for things that would have been fatal only a generation ago. That's a good thing. But it means we have to find a means to pay for it. And if that means more taxes – even on me – I'm all for it.
That depends on what you believe is good coverage. Is it the government's fault that significant numbers of people are uninsured? Or that preventitive care is not covered even for many who are insured? Or the horror stories of those who are insured getting $20,000 bills for something like a pregnancy?
The healthcare bills can be passed without one iota of Republican support, thing is they would need Blue Dog support and that hasn't materialized yet. When it comes down to healthcare reform vs keeping their jobs I think the Blue Dogs will choose their jobs even if they favored the plans, which I think many don't.
Given the public outcry and demands for a bi-partisan solution, the democrats are going to start having to offer massive amounts of concessions if they want to stay in power.