support for national health care collapsing

Support For National Health Care Collapsing

July 23rd, 2009 | By: Jason Arvak

Tags:

Leave a comment
| Trackback

The vitriol isn’t enough to cover up the flaws in the proposal any longer — a Rasmussen poll finds that a small and growing majority of the electorate is now opposed to current proposals for a “public option” health care system. The estimated cost of the system and the revelation of provisions that would force those with current private health care plans to lose access to those plans during a job change or other life event have caught the attention of many voters and the refusal of many health care reform advocates to acknowledge or respond to those concerns with anything other than demonization has seriously undermined what previously appeared to be an unstoppable political juggernaut.

Ignoring early demands for a respectful and substantive debate may have cost health care advocates their last, best chance for systemic reform. The Obama administration attempted to ignore the criticisms of the road to single-payer while the leftist side of the blogosphere (coordinating with the administration in a way they would have screamed bloody murder about one year ago but which they now shamelessly applaud as just plain good strategy) tried to simply bully the critics into submission. Neither approach worked, where a real debate might have. Way to go, people. Or not.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon


  1. Jeb

    July 23rd, 2009 at 18:43

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #1

    Ignoring early demands for a respectful and substantive debate may have cost health care advocates their last, best chance for systemic reform.

    Which members of the House or Senate were offering respectful and substantive debate?


  2. Jason Arvak

    July 23rd, 2009 at 19:38

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #2

    Jeb, I choose not to accept your artificial and self-serving scope limitation on the set of those who are relevant participants in a public policy debate.


  3. Jay_C

    July 23rd, 2009 at 20:02

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #3

    “Ignoring early demands for a respectful and substantive debate may have cost health care advocates their last, best chance for systemic reform.”

    I’ll add that:

    Ignoring early demands for a respectful and substantive debate may have cost Obama and many Democrats that wanted to push this bill through quickly, re-elections in 2010 and 2012. Not because of this one issue, but rather, the trend of “the do this quickly or the sky will fall” mentality. It didn’t help Bush at all.


  4. Interested

    July 25th, 2009 at 02:11

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #4

    Neither approach worked, where a real debate might have. Way to go, people.

    Absolute best news for American’s is if this Administration’s plan fails.


  5. Interested

    July 25th, 2009 at 03:25

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #5

    House healthcare negotiations dissolved in acrimony on Friday, with Blue Dog Democrats saying they were “lied” to by their Democratic leaders.

    In advance of a subsequent press conference called by House leadership, Blue Dog liaison Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) said the healthcare bill should be staying in committee.

    Dem’s lied? get out! who ever thought that Dems could have possibly have done that.

    Other than Indies, Repub’s of course.




NOTE: PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to basic standards of civility and topicality.

We reserve the right to edit or delete comments which are in our judgment egregiously and
gratuitously uncivil. We also reserve the right to delete all comments which are off-topic,
including those that grossly distort the topic of the post or serve merely as vehicles for
spamming.

Complaints or concerns about deleted or edited comments should be sent by email only. Complaints
posted as comments will be deleted.

Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate the comments policy may be banned.