Liberal Ad Misleads with Poll Numbers | The FactCheck Wire »
Posted By Klarissa 5 months, 1 week ago in NewsThe liberal advocacy group Americans United for Change has released a new ad backing President Obama's plan to reform health care. According to the ad, a new poll shows that 62 percent of Americans support the plan.
But that’s misleading. The poll in question, conducted for Diageo/Hotline, didn’t ask respondents about a specific plan. Rather, it asked whether they supported or opposed a “major overhaul” of the health care system, without any specifics.
Diageo/Hotline Question: Do you support or oppose Congress and the President enacting a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system?
Americans United for Change has said it’s spending “five figures” to buy air time for the ad on cable in Washington, D.C.
Read Full Story at wire.factcheck.org »
354 Views Share Story 24 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Klarissa
Berkeley conservative. Don't ask to be my friend unless you have a real bio.Eat your dessert first, life is uncertain. Bridge player, water ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 24 (view all)
-
73%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
more on fact check on this subject:
Reply
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_health_ca...
Obama's Health Care Claims
June 18, 2009
He says the uninsured cost the rest of U.S. families $1,000 a year.
Summary
We found several claims in Obama's recent health-care sales pitches that could use some explanation or qualification.
. . .But the claim is disputed. A 2008 report conducted by researchers from the Urban Institute for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation examined the first Families USA study, and found its claims to be unconvincing.
They concluded: "[W]e are highly skeptical that the high and growing cost of private insurance is strongly related, if at all, to the amount of uncompensated care delivered by private providers or to the growing number of uninsured people.”
Obama later rephrased his $1,000 claim, and put himself on firmer ground. In his speech to the American Medical Association, Obama said the cost was paid not just in higher premiums but also in "higher taxes" and "higher health care costs."
Obama, June 15: Each time an uninsured American steps foot into an emergency room with no way to reimburse the hospital for care, the cost is handed over to every American family as a bill of about $1,000 that's reflected in higher taxes, higher premiums and higher health care costs.
[does this apply to illegal aliens - a hidden part of Obama's health plan?]
. . .Obama later rephrased his $1,000 claim, and put himself on firmer ground. In his speech to the American Medical Association, Obama said the cost was paid not just in higher premiums but also in "higher taxes" and "higher health care costs."
Obama, June 15: Each time an uninsured American steps foot into an emergency room with no way to reimburse the hospital for care, the cost is handed over to every American family as a bill of about $1,000 that's reflected in higher taxes, higher premiums and higher health care costs.
Measuring Up
In both the Green Bay speech and the AMA speech, Obama said that the U.S. spends 50 percent more per person on health care than the next most expensive nation. Actually, data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which compares the health care of 30 industrialized nations, shows that we spend about 20 percent more per capita than Luxembourg, the next most expensive nation in 2006. The U.S. does spend 50 percent more per capita on health care than Switzerland, the next most expensive after that. -
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
56%
Wolfie20075 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is an old trick of political pollsters they ask question which will only get them the answers they want. Sort of like the old saw "have you stopped beating your wife." Back when the Clinton's were trying to sell Hillary care there was a poll that came out saying a huge majority were for it but the question asked was, "Do you agree that there needs to be changes in our health care system?"
Reply -
73%
nostalgia5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pew has a poll out on the topic
Reply
Obama's Ratings Remain High Despite Some Policy Concerns
As health care reform legislation moves forward in Washington, the political environment is somewhat different than the last time a major overhaul of the health care system was attempted sixteen years ago. In early 1993 the sense of a health care crisis was far more widespread than it is today – a 55% majority in 1993 said they felt the health care system needed to be “completely rebuilt” compared with 41% today. Health care costs were also a broader problem in 1993 – 63% of Americans said paying for the cost of a major illness was a “major problem” for them, compared with 48% currently.
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1534
As more people become aware that the CBO scored only part of Kennedy's bill as costing $1.6 trillion over 10 years but only will cover 17 million uninsured, the support will continue to decline-
70%
nostalgia5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you haven't read about the Kennedy bill this is a good article
Reply
Dissecting the Kennedy Health Bill
No, you won't be able to keep your insurance if you like it.
This legislation -- the Affordable Health Choices Act that's being drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).
For a health plan to count as "qualified," it has to meet all the restrictions listed in the legislation and whatever criteria the Secretary of Health and Human Services imposes after the bill becomes law. You may think you're in a "qualified" plan, but the language suggests that only plans with managed-care controls such as the "medical home" will meet the definition (sections 3101 and 2707).
"Medical home" is this decade's version of HMO-style insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with a primary-care provider to manage your access to costly services such as visits to specialists and diagnostic tests. Medical home providers in "qualified" plans, states the Kennedy bill, will have a "payment structure" based on "incentives" rather than payments for each doctor visit or procedure (section 3101).
These requirements are reminiscent of the unpopular controls HMOs imposed two decades ago that caused public outrage and led to state laws reining in abuses. In December 2008, a Congressional Budget Office report evaluating early drafts of major federal health insurance proposals noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the HMO gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control is a priority.
That report specifically referred to a payment incentive called the "withhold." When HMOs became dominant in the early 1990s, they would withhold 10% or more of physicians' fees until the end of the year and give it back only to the physicians who met targets for limiting how many referrals to specialists or diagnostic tests their patients used.
The targets were so stringent that, if they were exceeded, what a doctor prescribed for you came out of your doctor's own pocket at the end of the year. This set up a conflict of interest between you and your doctor.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439...
Don't you love it??
Congress and Federal employees are EXEMPT but you get to pay for their healthcare! -
67%
bluetexasvalley5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
New Poll Shows 76% Support for Choice of Public Plan
Reply
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/obama-boo...
Other poll results on single payer plan, from Feb. 2009
http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
-
-
60%
fjgalt5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Looking long range, Obama and some Dems seem to be looking to kill three birds with one stone. By restricting and delaying health care, more older people will die, relieving some of the burden on Social Security and Medicare.
Reply
BTW, $1.6 trillion to help 17 million = $95,000 per person. And that's for HMO-type care!!!
We haven't had a free market in health care for decades. The government screwed up the system beginning back in the beginning of the 20th century with medical licensing, making it illegal for people to medicate themselves, and having the FDA bureaucracy making drugs and treatments expensive and keeping them out of the hands of otherwise terminal patients. -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive4 Replies
-
78%
bubba25 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PsychoHosebeast is referring to the MANY comments posted by pc25, Wolfie, and many other "conservatives" on Propeller, all claiming that factcheck.org is "not objective".
Reply
I have posted and/or quoted articles from factcheck.org that dispute the so-called 'issues' with ACORN and Obama, and I have also posted and/or quoted articles from factcheck.org that validate issues with the Republicans or Bush or McCain or Palin.
But, just every time the response from some or all of you was that factcheck.org is "not objective" or is "too liberal".
Funny, since per the above post you all now think that factcheck.org IS "objective".
In other words, if the data on factcheck.org agrees with YOUR views, it is objective - if the data on factcheck.org does NOT agree with YOUR views, it is a "liberal" tool and thus not reliable.
The FACT is - factcheck.org is always objective and just about always clears up lies or innuendo or misconceptions from ALL politicians and ALL political parties.
How ironic ... and also how hypocritical of you all ....-
50%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bubba - most of the time factcheck is objective.
Reply
Sometimes it uses public sources that are themselves biased, therefore their conclusions
are also biased.
I would suggest that you lower your blood pressure by taking all sources with a grain of salt - consider them in the light of the events being reported, and look around to see if there are other viewpoints!!!!!!
-
-
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.