Polls undercut scripted protest claims

[GaryC 7]

Polls undercut scripted protest claims

By Jon Ward

August 10, 2009

The White House's claim that large and boisterous protests against health care reform over the past week have been scripted performances, underwritten by industry lobbyists and the Republican Party, continues to run into a stubborn reality check: public polling on the matter.

For more than two weeks, polls have consistently shown growing resistance to President Obama's reform proposals, largely because of concerns about the nation's deficit and debt.

"There are a number of statistically valid public opinion polls that show that there has been a dramatic increase in public concern about escalating deficits and debt levels and our nation's increased reliance on foreign lenders," said David Walker, the nation's former comptroller general.

Mr. Walker, who as president of the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation since 2008 has spearheaded an effort to raise public awareness about the country's long-term fiscal problems, said that the American people are "ahead of their elected officials" in understanding the need to rein in spending before expanding health care coverage.

"They get it," he said. "Costs are out of control, and they threaten the future of this country. And you cannot reduce cost by expanding coverage. That's an oxymoron."

Polls have not always shown outright opposition to the specifics of Mr. Obama's desired goals -- something his allies have been quick to point out, if only to argue that the overall numbers render the polls useless or are a sign of confusion among the electorate.

But within the same polls that show support for a government-run insurance option or for higher taxes on top earners, there has been disapproval of the president's handling of health care reform. Those polls also show that support for Mr. Obama's reforms are trumped by fears that government spending is running away with the country's future.

"It's easy for people to say they're in favor of raising taxes on rich people and business, but when you ask them whether they're in favor of increasing the deficit ... [to do] health care, that's a trade-off question and that's the question that really matters," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

A Quinnipiac poll last week found "strong support for critical elements of the Obama/Democratic plan" but also found that the nation's projected $1.8 trillion deficit was the overriding concern of the poll's 2,409 respondents.

A majority, 57 percent, said health care reform should be abandoned if it will "significantly" add to the deficit. Mr. Obama has promised that any reform will not add to the budget imbalance, but 72 percent of the registered voters surveyed by Quinnipiac said they did not think Mr. Obama would be able to deliver on that vow.

A National Public Radio poll of 850 likely voters in late July showed that 48 percent thought the president's policies have increased the federal deficit and done little to slow job loss, while 45 percent said Mr. Obama has blunted the recession and set a foundation for recovery. The poll also showed 47 percent opposition to the Obama health care reforms in Congress, with 42 percent support.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of 1,011 adults on July 30 showed that 42 percent thought the current health care reforms were a bad idea, while 36 percent thought them a good idea. More surprisingly, Republicans in Congress were more trusted to fix the budget deficit by a 31 percent to 25 percent margin, a drastic turnaround from January, when Democrats held the edge by a margin of 42 percent to 20 percent.

But a July 27 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed that 55 percent of 1,506 people surveyed still favored "spending more to make health care more accessible and affordable," compared with the 40 percent who disagreed with that statement. However, that same poll showed 43 percent disapproval of Mr. Obama's handling of the health care debate, 53 percent disapproval on the economy, and said that 44 percent "generally oppose" the health care proposals in Congress, while 38 percent generally favor them and 18 percent said they didn't know.

The White House at first responded to the poll numbers by claiming that Americans were being influenced by "misinformation." At one point in the middle of last week, an anonymous White House official told Politico that "poll numbers now, for health care, are up."

When asked by The Washington Times to verify that latter statement, however, no one in the White House communications office would own up to the quote or defend it.

But as protests erupted a week ago and spilled onto the Internet via YouTube and the Drudge Report, the administration took a new tack. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called the now-visible opposition "manufactured anger."

The Democratic National Committee piled on, calling the protesters "mobs" and even saying they were being "bused in" to events by "by well-funded, highly organized groups run by Republican operatives and funded by the special interests."

Brad Woodhouse, the DNC spokesman who made those accusations, said in an e-mail exchange that the evidence of protesters being bussed in came from "anecdotal reports" along with eyewitness accounts from some at an Aug. 2 forum in Philadelphia. The accounts said people saw buses from North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.

On Friday, the White House political arm Organizing for America sent a video to its 13 million or so supporters in which OFA Director Mitch Stewart said that town-hall protesters are "trying to drown out public discourse and legitimate conversation on this issue."

But Mr. Walker, the former comptroller, said the dissatisfaction being expressed was not a minority view but rather a reaction to the government's arrogance, pointing to the polls as quantifiable evidence.

"What's going on is there is increasing concern, which in some cases has turned to outrage, with how far out of touch and out of control Washington has become," Mr. Walker said.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, also noted that polling was a problem for the Democrats' attempts to delegitimize their opposition.

"If the polls were showing 80 percent support for Obama's health care plan, if the polls were showing increasing support for Obama personally, then you could say, 'Hey where are these people coming from?' " Mr. Norquist said. "But every poll shows that support for his plan or what they're talking about doing on health care is plummeting, personal support for Obama is plummeting."

Virtually every poll published during the last few weeks has shown the president's job approval declining noticeably, under duress from growing dissatisfaction over his handling of health care and the economy, and also from his comments about a racially charged incident involving the arrest of a black Harvard professor by a white Boston police officer.

A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday showed Mr. Obama with a 50 percent approval rating and 42 percent disapproval rating, down from 57 percent approval and 33 percent disapproval one month earlier.

Regardless of how authentic the protest movement is or what is driving it, however, the White House said both publicly and privately that it felt it had equalized the problem by portraying the president as a reasonable, optimistic and positive force in contrast to the anger and vitriol of their opponents.

The White House said that the move away from a debate over the details of health care policy and into more broad characterizations of the president and his opposition works in its favor.

"I think we've been in an environment where we've been focused on the process of health care reform, and, I don't think coincidentally, that has not been the most popular thing ... the sort of sausage-making aspect of this," Mr. Gibbs said last week.

The move reflects an attempt by the White House to rely on its best and most reliable asset: the president's personal popularity. The July 27 Pew poll showed that 74 percent of people said they personally "like" Mr. Obama and the "kind of person he is," while only 12 percent said they do not like him.

Jacki Schechner, a spokeswoman for Health Care for America Now, said of the town-hall protests that "anybody watching understands that it's members of Congress trying to go home and talk to people about health care reform ... and when people are trying to disrupt that intelligent conversation, it speaks for itself."

"I don't think they're opponents of reform. I think they're opponents of President Obama and the Democratic Congress," Ms. Schechner said. "I don't think they have opinions about health care. They've been told what to say and how to say it."

(Corrected paragraph:) But Bob MacGuffie, a libertarian activist in Connecticut, said that it's the White House and Democratic Party who "don't get it."

"They don't understand. The White House believes in control, and this is not something you can control," he said.

The previously unknown Mr. MacGuffie became a national figure last week when a memo he wrote with specific instructions for how to challenge public officials at town-hall meetings was used by liberal blogs and organizations such as Organizing for America, the White House political arm, as supposed evidence of a link between Washington advocacy groups and the town-hall protests.

"When you look at their response, all it is is denial of what people can see with their own eyes - misinformation, smears, lies and attacks," he said. "If that's all you can mount against us, I think the momentum is in our favor."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/a...ripted-protest/

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I keep hearing about how smart Barry is supposed to be, but it's incredibly stupid how his administration, the Dems, and sychophants in the media insist on demoizing and demeaning voters who "dare" to have ideas of their own that don't agree with his. They will find out how stupid they are.

[GaryC 7]

I keep hearing about how smart Barry is supposed to be, but it's incredibly stupid how his administration, the Dems, and sychophants in the media insist on demoizing and demeaning voters who "dare" to have ideas of their own that don't agree with his. They will find out how stupid they are.

Insulting your constituants isn't a very smart thing to do.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

I keep hearing about how smart Barry is supposed to be, but it's incredibly stupid how his administration, the Dems, and sychophants in the media insist on demoizing and demeaning voters who "dare" to have ideas of their own that don't agree with his. They will find out how stupid they are.

Insulting your constituants isn't a very smart thing to do.

but they aren't their consitutents, they are rethuglicans!

[GaryC 7]

I keep hearing about how smart Barry is supposed to be, but it's incredibly stupid how his administration, the Dems, and sychophants in the media insist on demoizing and demeaning voters who "dare" to have ideas of their own that don't agree with his. They will find out how stupid they are.

Insulting your constituants isn't a very smart thing to do.

but they aren't their consitutents, they are rethuglicans!

It is damn quiet in here. Where is Steven to claim that the polls have been faked by the evil corprate giants and the rethuglicans?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, these polls are interesting. Look at me, for example. I favor health care reform but I do not approve of the way the President and the Congress are handling the issue. They should have told the GOP a long time ago to either get on board or go ** themselves rather than entertaining their nonsense. The GOP has outed itself as an obstructing force at any cost and should have been shut out of the process right then and there. ** them. Had the President and the Democatic majority done that, I'd approve of their handling the issue.

And yet, I am still very much in favor of getting this sad excuse for a health care system that eats away at my wallet and at our economy replaced with a system focused on the health care needs of the people rather than the fat pockets of the medical-industrial complex and the death prescribing insurance companies.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Oregon. The shape of things to come?

Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon

Terminally Ill Denied Drugs for Life, But Can Opt for Suicide

By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES

Aug. 6, 2008 —

The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

Critics of Oregon's decade-old Death With Dignity Law -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter. Even those who support Oregon's liberal law were upset.

The incident has spilled over the state border into Washington, where advocacy groups are pushing for enactment of Initiative 1000 in November, legalizing a similar assisted-death law.

Opponents say the law presents all involved with an "unacceptable conflict" and the impression that insurance companies see dying as a cost-saving measure. They say it steers those with limited finances toward assisted death.

"News of payment denial is tough enough for a terminally ill person to bear," said Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for Compassion and Choices, a group that supports coverage of physician-assisted death.

Letter's Impact 'Devastating'

"Imagine if the recipient had pinned his hope for survival on an unproven treatment, or if this were the first time he understood the disease had entered the terminal phase. The impact of such a letter would be devastating," he told ABCNews.com.

Wagner, who had worked as a home health care worker, a waitress and a school bus driver, is divorced and lives in a low-income apartment. She said she could not afford to pay for the medication herself.

"I'm not too good today," said Wagner, a Springfield great-grandmother. "But I'm opposed to the [assisted suicide] law. I haven't considered it, even at my lowest point."

A lifelong smoker, she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005 and quit. The state-run Oregon Health Plan generously paid for thousands of dollars worth of chemotherapy, radiation, a special bed and a wheelchair, according to Wagner.

The cancer went into remission, but in May, Wagner found it had returned. Her oncologist prescribed the drug Tarceva to slow its growth, giving her another four to six months to live.

But under the insurance plan, she can the only receive "palliative" or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the "five-year, 5 percent rule" -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.

A 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study found the drug erlotinib, marketed as Tarceva, does marginally improve survival for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who had completed standard chemotherapy.

The median survival among patients who took erlotinib was 6.7 months compared to 4.7 months for those on placebo. At one year, 31 percent of the patients taking erlotinib were still alive compared to 22 percent of those taking the placebo.

"It's been tough," said her daughter, Susie May, who burst into tears while talking to ABCNews.com. "I was the first person my mom called when she got the letter," said May, 42. "While I was telling her, 'Mom, it will be ok,' I was crying, but trying to stay brave for her."

"I've talked to so many people who have gone through the same problems with the Oregon Health Plan," she said.

Indeed, Randy Stroup, a 53-year-old Dexter resident with terminal prostate cancer, learned recently that his doctor's request for the drug mitoxantrone had been rejected. The treatment, while not a cure, could ease Stroup's pain and extend his life by six months.

Playing With 'My Life'

"What is six months of life worth?" he asked in a report in the Eugene Register-Guard. "To me it's worth a lot. This is my life they're playing with."

The Oregon Health Plan was established in 1994 and the physician-assisted death law was enacted in 1997. The state was recently hailed by a University of Wisconsin study as having one of the nation's top pain-management policies.

The health plan, for those whose incomes fall under the poverty level, prioritizes coverage -- from prevention first, to chronic disease management, treatment of mental health, heart and cancer treatment.

"It's challenging because health care is very expensive, but that's not the real essence of our priority list," said Dr. Jeanene Smith, administrator for the Office of for Oregon's Health Policy and Research staff.

"We need evidence to say it is a good use of taxpayer's dollars," she said. "It may be expensive, but if it does wonders, we cover it."

The state also regularly evaluates and updates approvals for cancer treatments. "We look as exhaustively as we can with good peer review evidence," she said.

The health plan takes "no position" on the physician-assisted suicide law, according to spokesman Jim Sellers.

The terminally ill who qualify can receive pain medication, comfort and hospice care, "no matter what the cost," he said.

But Sellers acknowledged the letter to Wagner was a public relations blunder and something the state is "working on."

"Now we have to review to ensure sensitivity and clarity," Sellers told ABCNews.com "Not only is the patient receiving had news, but insensitivity on top of that. This is something that requires the human touch."

Sellers said that from now on insurance officials will likely "pick up the phone and have a conversation," he said.

But a 1998 study from Georgetown University's Center for Clinical Bioethics found a strong link between cost-cutting pressures on physicians and their willingness to prescribe lethal drugs to patients -- were it legal to do so.

The study warns that there must be "a sobering degree of caution in legalizing [assisted death] in a medical care environment that is characterized by increasing pressure on physicians to control the cost of care."

Cancer drugs can cost anywhere from $3,000 to $6,000 a month. The cost of lethal medication, on the other hand, is about $35 to $50.

Advocates for the proposed Washington law say that while offering death benefits but not health care can be perceived as a cost-cutting, "respectable studies" say otherwise.

"The reason is that hospice care, where most patients are at the end of life is relatively inexpensive," Anne Martens, spokesman for Washington's Death With Dignity Initiative, told ABCNews.com.

But even those who support liberal death laws say Wagner's predicament is reflective of insurance attitudes nationwide.

Case Is Not Unique

"Her case is hardly unique," said Michigan lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, who defended Dr. Jack Kevorkian's crusade to legalize physician-assisted deaths. "In the rest of the country insurance companies are making these decisions and are not paying for suicide," Fieger told ABCNews.com. "Involuntary choices are foisted on people all the time by virtue of denials."

"I am surprised there hasn't been a revolt in this country," he said. "It happens every day and people are helpless."

Indeed, one executive suffering from a rare and potentially fatal form of liver cancer is fighting his insurance company for coverage. Oncologists from a major teaching hospital in New York City have prescribed Sutent -- a medication that costs about $4,000 a month and could extend his life expectancy.

"Most of my objections are that some second rate guy on the staff of the insurance company is second-guessing one of the foremost authorities and trumping his judgment," said the 57-year-old executive, who didn't want his name used to protect his privacy.

"I am fortunate to have the financial resources and the ability to fight these people who would rather these you die," he told ABCNews.com.

Dr. Jonathan Groner, clinical professor of surgery at OSU College of Medicine and Public Health in Columbus, Ohio, said some patients may want to prolong their lives for a life-cycle event, like a birth or wedding.

"A course of chemo would not cure, but would subdue the cancer long enough to be meaningful," he told ABCNEWS.com. "There are many people with slow-growing but nonetheless metastatic cancer for whom death, while inevitable, is many years away."

"The problem with the Oregon plan is it sounds like administrators, not physicians, are making treatment decisions," he said. "And if a patient can get assisted death paid for but not cancer treatment, the choice is obvious."

Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society and author of "Final Exit," who helped write the Oregon Death With Dignity Law, said only about 30 people a year choose an assisted death, which must be approved by two doctors.

"It's purely optional and the patient and doctor can walk away from it," the 78-year-old told ABCNEWS.com. "It's not the mad rush our enemies predicted and for our residents it has worked out well."

His own wife, Jean, was diagnosed with fast-growing breast cancer in 1975 and asked him to help find drugs to help her die. At 42, she chose to take them and ended her life.

Humphry says the Oregon Health Plan's approach to coverage is sound.

"People cling to life and look for every sort of crazy cure to keep alive and usually they are better off not to have done it," he said.

Meanwhile Wagner has faith in her medicine, not assisted death. Now, at the request of her doctor, the pharmaceutical company Genentech is giving her Tarceva free of charge for one year.

"The doctor did say it would put a lid on the cancer and I am hopeful," she said.

Wagner's daughter Susie May says her mother is a fighter. "I think we all knew that this is her last hope," she said.

Even Wagner's ex-husband, Dennis Wagner of Springfield, has weighed in on the ethical dilemma.

"My reaction is pretty typical," he told ABCNews.com. "I am sick and tired of the dollar being the bottom line of everything. We need to put human life above the dollar."

Rana Senol of ABC News Research contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No problem. I'm sure private insurance companies are already competing over this new client.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No problem. I'm sure private insurance companies are already competing over this new client.

Not really. She's dead.

[GaryC 7]

Well, these polls are interesting. Look at me, for example. I favor health care reform but I do not approve of the way the President and the Congress are handling the issue. They should have told the GOP a long time ago to either get on board or go ** themselves rather than entertaining their nonsense. The GOP has outed itself as an obstructing force at any cost and should have been shut out of the process right then and there. ** them. Had the President and the Democatic majority done that, I'd approve of their handling the issue.

And yet, I am still very much in favor of getting this sad excuse for a health care system that eats away at my wallet and at our economy replaced with a system focused on the health care needs of the people rather than the fat pockets of the medical-industrial complex and the death prescribing insurance companies.

If you really think the GOP has had any real chance to provide input you need to read up a little. Even the most basic good will gesture has been shot down. A rep offered an ammendment to require congress to use what ever program they finally pass. It was shot down in a heartbeat. No Dog, the dems are running the whole show and they know it. The only reason they even let the GOP into the same room is because they are looking for political cover. They have fillibuster proof majorities and don't need the GOP at all. Even with that they still can't pass anything.

Now a personal question. I can see you don't like the current bills being debated right now. Given a choice between what I gather you think is a bad bill and nothing at all which one would you choose?

[alienlovechild 75]

They should have told the GOP a long time ago to either get on board or go ** themselves rather than entertaining their nonsense. The GOP has outed itself as an obstructing force at any cost and should have been shut out of the process right then and there.

How did you like Bush's billions spent on prescription drugs?

And yet, I am still very much in favor of getting this sad excuse for a health care system that eats away at my wallet and at our economy replaced with a system focused on the health care needs of the people rather than the fat pockets of the medical-industrial complex and the death prescribing insurance companies.

Much better to get someone else to pay the bills. I'll send you a few of mine.

The reality is the medical-industrial complex paid off the Democrats knowing that was the only way to get influence.

"Members of a Senate Committee that today held the first part of a hearing to examine whether health insurance companies are failing to fully pay reimbursements to policyholders haven't had any trouble themselves collecting money from these companies. In total, health insurance companies' PACs and employees have given 25 members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation $3.3 million in campaign contributions since the 1990 election cycle, with 53 percent of that going to Democrats*."

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/he...policyhold.html

Edited August 11, 2009 by alienlovechild

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I keep hearing about how smart Barry is supposed to be, but it's incredibly stupid how his administration, the Dems, and sychophants in the media insist on demoizing and demeaning voters who "dare" to have ideas of their own that don't agree with his. They will find out how stupid they are.

How dare private citizens exercise the first amendment.

In the future I hope the Obama administration sticks to their scripted questions. The debate is much cleaner that way.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

I keep hearing about how smart Barry is supposed to be, but it's incredibly stupid how his administration, the Dems, and sychophants in the media insist on demoizing and demeaning voters who "dare" to have ideas of their own that don't agree with his. They will find out how stupid they are.

How dare private citizens exercise the first amendment.

In the future I hope the Obama administration sticks to their scripted questions. The debate is much cleaner that way.

this must be the reaching across the aisle that i've heard about.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, these polls are interesting. Look at me, for example. I favor health care reform but I do not approve of the way the President and the Congress are handling the issue. They should have told the GOP a long time ago to either get on board or go ** themselves rather than entertaining their nonsense. The GOP has outed itself as an obstructing force at any cost and should have been shut out of the process right then and there. ** them. Had the President and the Democatic majority done that, I'd approve of their handling the issue.

And yet, I am still very much in favor of getting this sad excuse for a health care system that eats away at my wallet and at our economy replaced with a system focused on the health care needs of the people rather than the fat pockets of the medical-industrial complex and the death prescribing insurance companies.

If you really think the GOP has had any real chance to provide input you need to read up a little. Even the most basic good will gesture has been shot down. A rep offered an ammendment to require congress to use what ever program they finally pass. It was shot down in a heartbeat. No Dog, the dems are running the whole show and they know it. The only reason they even let the GOP into the same room is because they are looking for political cover. They have fillibuster proof majorities and don't need the GOP at all. Even with that they still can't pass anything.

Now a personal question. I can see you don't like the current bills being debated right now. Given a choice between what I gather you think is a bad bill and nothing at all which one would you choose?

Goodwill gesture? Such as the living will provision in HR3200 that Republicans co-sponsored and that their House Leadership then turned around and called a "euthanasia provision"? You may call that goodwill gesture, I call it an ill spirited approach to derail reform. It may pass for goodwill gesture for you when Sen. Jim DeMint steps forward defining the GOP's goals in very unmistakable terms - make health care reform Obama's Waterloo - but in the real world this cannot be mistaken for an offer of bi-partisan cooperation.

As for the legislation on the table - I am missing the cost saving measures: Steps to get away from the failed fee-for-service compensation model and the use of the government's negotiating power to lower prescription drug prices would have been a good start. At the same time, I realize that you can't win a battle that you fight on too many fronts. Realistically, there's a need to start somewhere and if we can reign in the run-away cost of health insurance, re-introduce competition into this market and put up a public option as a check and balance tool, then I think that's a start.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog