If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,113
Likes
10,942
Points
113
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102904_pf.html

If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly
By Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen
Friday, March 12, 2010; A17

In "The March of Folly," Barbara Tuchman asked, "Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests?" Her assessment of self-deception -- "acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts" -- captures the conditions that are gripping President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership as they renew their efforts to enact health-care reform.

Their blind persistence in the face of reality threatens to turn this political march of folly into an electoral rout in November. In the wake of the stinging loss in Massachusetts, there was a moment when the president and Democratic leadership seemed to realize the reality of the health-care situation. Yet like some seductive siren of Greek mythology, the lure of health-care reform has arisen again.

As pollsters to the past two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively, we feel compelled to challenge the myths that seem to be prevailing in the political discourse and to once again urge a change in course before it is too late. At stake is the kind of mainstream, common-sense Democratic Party that we believe is crucial to the success of the American enterprise.

Bluntly put, this is the political reality:

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.

However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week, while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.

The White House document released Thursday arguing that reform is becoming more popular is in large part fighting the last war. This isn't 1994; it's 2010. And the bottom line is that the American public is overwhelmingly against this bill in its totality even if they like some of its parts.

The notion that once enactment is forced, the public will suddenly embrace health-care reform could not be further from the truth -- and is likely to become a rallying cry for disaffected Republicans, independents and, yes, Democrats.

Second, the country is moving away from big government, with distrust growing more generally toward the role of government in our lives. Scott Rasmussen asked last month whose decisions people feared more in health care: that of the federal government or of insurance companies. By 51 percent to 39 percent, respondents feared the decisions of federal government more. This is astounding given the generally negative perception of insurance companies.

CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, as was also reported last month, we face an alarming crisis.

Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to assure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters' minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.

Voters are hardly enthralled with the GOP, but the Democrats are pursuing policies that are out of step with the way ordinary Americans think and feel about politics and government. Barring some change of approach, they will be punished severely at the polls.

Now, we vigorously opposed Republican efforts in the Bush administration to employ the "nuclear option" in judicial confirmations. We are similarly concerned by Democrats' efforts to manipulate passage of a health-care bill. Doing so in the face of constant majority opposition invites a backlash against the party at every level -- and at a time when we already face the prospect of losing 30 or more House seats and eight or more Senate seats.

For Democrats to begin turning around their political fortunes there has to be a frank acknowledgement that the comprehensive health-care initiative is a failure, regardless of whether it passes. There are enough Republican and Democratic proposals -- such as purchasing insurance across state lines, malpractice reform, incrementally increasing coverage, initiatives to hold down costs, covering preexisting conditions and ensuring portability -- that can win bipartisan support. It is not a question of starting over but of taking the best of both parties and presenting that as representative of what we need to do to achieve meaningful reform. Such a proposal could even become a template for the central agenda items for the American people: jobs and economic development.

Unless the Democrats fundamentally change their approach, they will produce not just a march of folly but also run the risk of unmitigated disaster in November.

Patrick H. Caddell is a political commentator and former pollster. Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster, is most recently the author of "The Political Fix."
 
It is not a question of starting over but of taking the best of both parties and presenting that as representative of what we need to do to achieve meaningful reform.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
 
I am a huge fan of Caddell. If I were running a campaign, he'd be the first guy I'd hire. He's a democrat, too, having worked for the McGovern, Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden, and Jerry Brown presidential campaigns, as well as consulting for the TV show The West Wing. Interestingly enough, I have the entire West Wing series on DVD and am watching them at work these days.

Schoen is a Democrat, as well, having worked for Ed Coch, Bill Clinton, and Hillery Clinton. A Harvard Law School alum, like my president.
 
Cadell and Schoen are right on the politics, but they're commenting on the wrong game. The Democrats in power don't care about the next two elections, which they would lose handily to the Republicans. They are taking the long view. If this massive new entitlement goes through, the Democrats will have permanently moved this country to the left, which is their playing field. They'll be a permanent majority, and the names Obama, Pelosi and Reid--as reviled as they are now--will be rewritten in history as towering statespeople.
 
Cadell and Schoen are right on the politics, but they're commenting on the wrong game. The Democrats in power don't care about the next two elections, which they would lose handily to the Republicans. They are taking the long view. If this massive new entitlement goes through, the Democrats will have permanently moved this country to the left, which is their playing field. They'll be a permanent majority, and the names Obama, Pelosi and Reid--as reviled as they are now--will be rewritten in history as towering statespeople.

I think there's some truth to this. When the programs fail, which is a given, but under republican watch, guess who gets the blame!
 
Cadell and Schoen are right on the politics, but they're commenting on the wrong game. The Democrats in power don't care about the next two elections, which they would lose handily to the Republicans. They are taking the long view. If this massive new entitlement goes through, the Democrats will have permanently moved this country to the left, which is their playing field. They'll be a permanent majority, and the names Obama, Pelosi and Reid--as reviled as they are now--will be rewritten in history as towering statespeople.

Don't count on that. I read today that middle income tax hikes for Obamacare is now a near certainty. In addition, this healthcare plan may end up casting those 3 as the single worst trio in american history at their respective positions.

History has a funny way of being more honest than people think at the time it occurs.
 
Cadell and Schoen are right on the politics, but they're commenting on the wrong game. The Democrats in power don't care about the next two elections, which they would lose handily to the Republicans. They are taking the long view. If this massive new entitlement goes through, the Democrats will have permanently moved this country to the left, which is their playing field. They'll be a permanent majority, and the names Obama, Pelosi and Reid--as reviled as they are now--will be rewritten in history as towering statespeople.

If you think in any way this country is anything but center-right, and has been for 30 years, and that this health care plan will in any way, shape, or form change that, you have been drinking the Glen Beck kool-aid a LOT bit too much.
 
The issue is simple: Once you put in an entitlement, it's like a ratchet--it only moves forward, not backward. People like stuff they consider to be "free" or to which they've paid into. If you've paid for something, no matter how little, you want to make sure you get value for your money. The Democrats are the party of big government. Once the government gets its mitts on healthcare, they'll literally have the power of life and death over the citizenry. The Democrats will run on, "The Republicans want to pull the plug on grandma; we'll make sure you have more of the health care you deserve." Fiscal responsibility takes a back seat to your own life. It will no longer be a battle of center-right vs. center-left. It will be center-left vs. far-left. Even the Tories now defend the NHS, even though they fought Atlee and Labour over its inception. That's not Glenn Beck, that's a simple study of what happens to countries that enact this ruinous policy.
 
If you think in any way this country is anything but center-right, and has been for 30 years, and that this health care plan will in any way, shape, or form change that, you have been drinking the Glen Beck kool-aid a LOT bit too much.

Me thinks you have your left and right directions confused.
 
Cadell and Schoen are right on the politics, but they're commenting on the wrong game. The Democrats in power don't care about the next two elections, which they would lose handily to the Republicans. They are taking the long view. If this massive new entitlement goes through, the Democrats will have permanently moved this country to the left, which is their playing field. They'll be a permanent majority, and the names Obama, Pelosi and Reid--as reviled as they are now--will be rewritten in history as towering statespeople.

Exactly right. However, their success seems to rest on convincing their fellow Democrats to be cannon fodder, which, to me, is seeming increasingly unlikely. Score another one for the beneficence of self-interest.
 
The issue is simple: Once you put in an entitlement, it's like a ratchet--it only moves forward, not backward. People like stuff they consider to be "free" or to which they've paid into. If you've paid for something, no matter how little, you want to make sure you get value for your money. The Democrats are the party of big government. Once the government gets its mitts on healthcare, they'll literally have the power of life and death over the citizenry. The Democrats will run on, "The Republicans want to pull the plug on grandma; we'll make sure you have more of the health care you deserve." Fiscal responsibility takes a back seat to your own life. It will no longer be a battle of center-right vs. center-left. It will be center-left vs. far-left. Even the Tories now defend the NHS, even though they fought Atlee and Labour over its inception. That's not Glenn Beck, that's a simple study of what happens to countries that enact this ruinous policy.

Pretty much true. It's why most industrialized countries are already there, and the citizens of those countries by large majorities wouldn't think of trading it for our "system". Most people like it. The dummies, unlike you, just don't know what's good for them.
 
After eight years of George Bush, you have the audacity to say something like that?

Wow.

You're absolutely right and you have identified the reason I'm not a Republican. May I amend my post to state "The Democratic Party is the party of bigger government"? That statement would be more correct. Both parties are for big government.
 
Pretty much true. It's why most industrialized countries are already there, and the citizens of those countries by large majorities wouldn't think of trading it for our "system". Most people like it. The dummies, unlike you, just don't know what's good for them.

This is probably the best case that can be made for such things, but in reality, it's still a terrible case. There are at least two major flaws that don't reduce to people just not knowing what's good for them.

1. What's good for you is contextual. "Most people" like pyramid schemes and stock bubbles too, so long as they think they're on the right side of it. If you buy a stock at $20 and expect it to eventually go to $10, it's not dumb to sell it if you expect it to go to $100 first. Unfortunately, accurately timing stock price changes is generally not possible, so even "smart" people get caught in an intractable problem. Just like countries with these sorts of government gimmicks.

Someone who doesn't own that stock, however, would be smart not to buy it in the first place, and go for less sexy but more fundamentally sound stocks.

2. "Their system" won't be "their system" any more if we adopt it, because they free ride off innovations produced by "our system".

3. There is considerable difference between systems and popularity thereof in different countries. And, of course, considerable difference in populations. I somehow doubt Mook, that you're calling for implementation of Singapore's medical system.
 
You're absolutely right and you have identified the reason I'm not a Republican. May I amend my post to state "The Democratic Party is the party of bigger government"? That statement would be more correct. Both parties are for big government.

I think that both parties now are all for government solving the country's problems. They just differ on which problems to solve.
 
2. "Their system" won't be "their system" any more if we adopt it, because they free ride off innovations produced by "our system".

I don't find this argument convincing. Healthcare, no matter what, will continue to be a huge, huge industry, and thus there will be lots of opportunities to make money via innovation.

Look at the military. 100% government owned and controlled, and yet there is lots of innovation there. Lots of private companies thinking up new ways to help the government kill people more efficiently. [Insert death panel joke here]

barfo
 
I don't find this argument convincing. Healthcare, no matter what, will continue to be a huge, huge industry, and thus there will be lots of opportunities to make money via innovation.

Look at the military. 100% government owned and controlled, and yet there is lots of innovation there. Lots of private companies thinking up new ways to help the government kill people more efficiently. [Insert death panel joke here]

barfo

And lots and lots of waste and inefficiencies.
 
Probably. But his point was about innovation, not waste.

barfo

And if there is a specified amount of money to spend, innovation will decrease with more waste and less efficiency.
 
The military budget is about $600B to service about 2.5M people. Just think about all the innovation when we're spending less than 2x that for 10x the people.
 
And if there is a specified amount of money to spend, innovation will decrease with more waste and less efficiency.

I don't think that necessarily follows. Innovation isn't something you put in a budget, so it isn't something that gets cut from a budget to fund other things (including waste).

In fact, I'd argue that smaller budgets may lead to greater innovation - if you need to do more with less, you'll try harder to find new solutions than if you have unlimited funds. Therefore, government waste drives innovation :)

barfo
 
The military budget is about $600B to service about 2.5M people. Just think about all the innovation when we're spending less than 2x that for 10x the people.

Uhm... I'm not sure I see the point of that comparison. The purpose of the military budget isn't to "service" the servicepeople. The soldiers in your example would correspond to the health care bureaucrats in a government run health care plan, and I don't think there would be quite 250 million of those.

Nor do I see how those numbers imply much of anything about innovation.

barfo
 
I don't think that necessarily follows. Innovation isn't something you put in a budget, so it isn't something that gets cut from a budget to fund other things (including waste)....

barfo

That is, unless (pre) innovation falls under the heading of R&D.
 
That is, unless (pre) innovation falls under the heading of R&D.

That is a fair point - I agree government R&D could be impacted by wasteful spending. Although I suspect that waste, or lack thereof, isn't actually a big factor in setting the R&D budgets - political priorities appear to me to be a vastly bigger influence.

barfo
 
Uhm... I'm not sure I see the point of that comparison. The purpose of the military budget isn't to "service" the servicepeople. The soldiers in your example would correspond to the health care bureaucrats in a government run health care plan, and I don't think there would be quite 250 million of those.

Nor do I see how those numbers imply much of anything about innovation.

barfo

That after paying for 2.5M people, there's a lot of money left to pay for innovation (and $800 hammers and $5,000 toilet seats).
 
That after paying for 2.5M people, there's a lot of money left to pay for innovation (and $800 hammers and $5,000 toilet seats).

Right, so you are agreeing with me that government run health care would not stifle innovation?

barfo
 
Right, so you are agreeing with me that government run health care would not stifle innovation?

barfo

Not at all.

They're going to spend 150% of the money they think they are on anything but innovation.

There's not going to be $100B to invent the next jet fighter (equivalent) for health care.
 
I am a huge fan of Caddell. If I were running a campaign, he'd be the first guy I'd hire. He's a democrat, too, having worked for the McGovern, Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden, and Jerry Brown presidential campaigns...

So pretty much the political equivalent of Shareef Abdul-Rahim. :biglaugh:
 
Not at all.

They're going to spend 150% of the money they think they are on anything but innovation.

There's not going to be $100B to invent the next jet fighter (equivalent) for health care.

Luckily, health care innovations don't cost $100B, nor are they funded by health insurance companies. So if government "takes over" health care insurance, I'm not sure I see the impact on innovation.

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top