The right is apparently worked up today about a "poll" conducted by "a non-partisan association of doctors and patients" that found 83% of American doctors have considered quitting practicing medicine altogether because of the Affordable Care Act. The results, such as they are, were published by something called the Doctor Patient Medical Association.
The problem is, the survey is ... how do I put this gently ... quite stupid. Drudge, Fox News, the Daily Caller, Townhall, and RedState may be excited about the results, but everything about this little press stunt -- from the wording of the question to the methodology to the folks who paid for it -- is, as Simon Maloy put it, "comically awful."
More interesting, however, is a legitimate poll from the Washington Post/ABC News, which asked respondents, "[O]verall, do you support or oppose the federal law making changes to the health care system?" I put together a chart showing how much the results changed in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Maddow Blog chart based on Post/ABC data
In April, before the decision, 39% expressed support for the Affordable Care Act, while a 53% majority disapproved of the law. Now, support has gone up eight points, but opposition has gone down six points.
When House Republicans vote for the 31st time tomorrow to kill the entirety of the law -- that's literally the number, not a figure exaggerated for humor -- they'll no doubt give a lot of speeches boasting that "the American people" are on their side. But public attitudes are far more complex than the right chooses to believe -- support for the law has gone up and the provisions within the law remain quite popular. Less than a third of the country actually likes the Republican proposal to scrap every letter of the law.
Indeed, while there's little doubt the 31st House vote on repealing the health care law will go exactly the same way as the first 30 House votes -- it's going to pass -- it's been interesting to watch the ground shift a bit in the wake of the high court ruling. Republicans still hate the law, of course, but the bigger picture has become more complicated.
For one thing, many of the lawmakers themselves are taking advantage of the law's benefits to help their families, which makes it tougher for the same lawmakers to take those same benefits away from the rest of us.
For another, Republicans are finding that their worst fears are coming true: some of their constituents actually like "Obamacare" benefits and don't want to see them disappear. The New York Times went so far as to report yesterday that "cracks" are starting to appear in the GOP's formerly-united front on this issue.
Greg Sargent added that some Democrats are even ready to go on the offensive over health care for the first time in a long while.
In North Dakota, where Dem Heidi Heitkamp ran ads hitting her GOP opponent, Rep. Rick Berg, for supporting repeal, Berg suddenly came out for individual provisions within Obamacare, such as the ban on discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. Freshman GOP Rep. Frank Guinta of New Hampshire responded to the Supreme Court ruling by claiming he was ready to work with Democrats to amend the law, rather than blow it up. GOP Rep. Charlie Bass, while still backing repeal, has come out in support of some of the law's provisions.
And the Times story reports that Republican consultants are privately uncertain what repeal gets them. Base voters are already energized against Obama, but the Times says those consultants are wondering how a "rehashing of the health care debate will affect independent voters."
This isn't to say the Affordable Care Act is suddenly popular; it's not. But the politics surrounding the law are clearly different than they were just a few months ago, and for the GOP, the developments aren't encouraging.
Leave a Comment:
Steve, please stop doing the idiotic rationalist complaint "but but... it isn't true! But but- why do so many people believe the Fox BS".
It is the problem with progressives that was talked about on UP and Bill Moyers last weekend. We counter positions that appeal to people's hearts with arguments from the mind.
And then rationalist elites wonder why their waves of devastating arguments are rotting on the beaches, and decry how the electorate is ignoring them, responding "irrationally... emotionally".
Well get a fricking clue. The electorate is emotional. Oh what a shock. In the lingo of Nietsche's Birth of Tragedy, progressives are doing the Apollinian number, and the Right is hooked into the Dionesian.
This is not zero sum. The answer to propaganda that bypasses the frontal lobes is not to play the same game, but to include arguments that go not just to the head, but the heart.
Run stories like that, building up a message with the crystalizing emotion not of Hate but of moral indignation and disgust at the excesses of the 1%.
I have to agree that we need to speak the same language first to counter the information. I haven't figured it out quite yet, but there is truth to be told to hearts of those who have closed off the other areas.
It is meant as positive criticism to have more stories that touch the human nerve.
The graphs work too, but that bubble has to be gotten through first. The facts are rejected by some rationale, but the facts are needed. I do not reject facts. I need facts and emotions, but some do not care about facts, only emotions.
I know when I heard that congress person say "if I hear one more sob story", a nerve was struck.
There are some people that are never going to hear a message at all if it has any kind of hint of the opposition. Some people will hear stories about real people, put a face (other than the face they were told) they know.
It's just like a LGBTQ person coming out. Once people know someone LGBTQ, they cannot put a foreign face or no face, but someone's face they know and love.
People can hear statistics all day long about suicide, bullying, etc. but if they know someone, especially if they love someone, there is a connection made.
I agree. (Did I just write that?) To make an effective case with the public the appeal has to be 75% emotion and only 25% rational. (Those are my figures, no data or source.)
I would say that many readers here tend to be more logical oriented than the general public, but that's anecdotal.
Lastly, the imbalance of emotional and rational reasoning is also why political pundits can only make half of the case. For instance, I'm not challenging Mr. Benen's article and/or facts, but the question to me is:
Do you think the majority of doctors are FOR the Affordable Healthcare Act as it is now, or are the majority AGAINST it? He's challenged the validity of the survey by attacking the source (which is appropriate), but the bigger question is can you make the case that the finds are grossly inaccurate?
In the end, it doesn't really matter. Why? Most act of emotion instead of reason.
The trouble is how we model the healthy relationship between head and heart. The Enlightenment approach was neoclassical, post Socratic Greek- dominate the emotions with rationalism. Modern models of cognition understand that there can be no thought without emotion. Form diverse studies of fmri imaging and cases where damage to anterior brain areas cause an inability to feel emotion, the evidence is piling up. We are unable to make decisions without an emotional component as nucleus of the evaluation.
I am in the fusion school. What Fox does is work of an emotional spine of contempt and mockery. While it is not a concern of the right, progressives generally realize that these emotions are not conducive to pluralistic egalitarian societies. So which positive motions can provide the movement galvanizing power within the ideas? Is it empahthy? Eg. what Sally Struthers would do in her much parodied Giving to Children commercials to blast people out of their indifference to the plight of others?
IMHO, it is righteous indignation. Indignation based on facts, and indignation cognizant of intellectual nuance. The difference between moral disgust and contempt is that one is an appeal to the other to return to the common fold of commonly held values, the other (contempt) is to demonize and exclude others as outside the tribe and the epitome of evil that justifies any means to destroy them. That is what separates it from the cynical "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" routine that Fox news is doing to gain ratings and simultaneously manipulate the political landscape to Murdoch's liking. Each of the MSNBC hosts can be seen as trying to establish connection at this emotional substratum with different political demographic segments. Personally, I think they all suffer because they don't have a clear idea about what the model of health is for the relationship between head and heart, and how to effectively connect with centrist, moderate right, and even right wing voters/viewers for each of these demographics. Conservatives are persuaded that MSNBC is like a church for liberals, and hosts don't provide a particularly welcoming environment.
This is not rocket science. Take any story. Write it five different ways and focus group test it like Luntz does. Then you have a ton of empirical evidence why one particular way of constructing stories around emotions works better than others.
Do the science for yourself MSNBC. Figure it out.
All of you are speaking well to me and I applaud your positions. Yes, make an emotional appeal on presentation of fact so that mind can see the differences and the heart/soul/gut can feel the appeal to solution. I would like to add that this pundit model for communicating politics is a shame. All political talk shows are a mockery of the "public's right to know" because they more often let questions go unanswered then demand answer. I don't believe such an exchange even qualifies as complete communication. All sides, all involved, are complicit. A naked illusion for everyone to see, of naked-king struts and airbrushed pigs. Only the recent fierce refusal to answer has gotten some political talk show hosts to pursue answer and cite any refusal to answer just .
Sorry, sociopaths have no heart. They completely lack empathy. Just inform how much better off they will be and especially how they will win. One can only make a plea to their egos...how they will now be able to stick it to those deceitful greedy, ins. companies that have bveen sticking it to them for so long. Sorry, those rich bastards are finally getting theirs eh.
"...finally getting theirs.." is empty victory. The wealthy and large corps have already gotten away with self-enriching legislation that will continue increasing their wealth regardless of what choice is made on taxes and health care.
John, I still agree with most in your comment. It all boils down to how do you effectively make the point to achieve the desired result. My biggest gripe is that both sides misrepresent the "whole" truth in the process by only presenting "half" of the truth, their half.
I, for one, wish that politicians for once would take the..."well, my opponent makes a good point here but you have to also consider this..." instead of demonizing everything except for the part you are pushing. I know that's sort of broad in nature but I hope it communicates the point.
For instance, no one is talking or doing anything about the next debt ceiling limit although we all know it is coming. Now is the time for reason and action instead of when a deadline makes it a stronger political issue.
RobDon: Good point to acknowledge the good points of the opposition, which is more inherent in the English debate system, than the pathological opposition inherent today in the American debate system.
Yes, emotion includes the fiery anger of indignation. The portrayal of a reason to be fired up about health care as they are lying to you!
People are eating up this sausage they grind up and lace it with an addictive drug to keep them hooked on their rhetoric without questioning.
I like to think people are desirous of not being fooled into something. We need to be telling people, you need to allow critical thinking to say, well yes, I know people that are in need of help. They are not lazy, they tried hard, but they still had (X) happen which caused their situation to change. Start sticking up for them. Start thinking, well but for the grace of God, go I.
Telling people tax cuts for rich do not equal jobs and stop trying to please the abuser. The policies are abusive to our people.
No, people are not all the same and react differently. But, these right wingers have trained their listeners and supporters to please them, because those over there are trying to take us all down. They want to tax us and that will mean something bad for you. What? They already foreclosed, started wars, put wars on credit card, outsourced jobs, told you the b.s. that Romneycare and Obamacare are socialism. Look who the Republican nominee is, the rich guy with blind trust and Swiss account who outsources jobs and wants more tax cuts, when people were just told to care more about debt and deficit over jobs.
But the taxes are already low for 12 years and the jobs left! Fact! The right has nothing that addresses that fact. Just rhetoric about trickle down, when it has not done that.
The right during that time exemplified outsourcing jobs. I keep pointing out Saipan with Delay praising it just a very short time ago. They LOVE the outsourcing, but wonder why consumers are not able to buy anything.
Scoffing at climate change is a PROGRAMMED response. Even when you have children that are subjected to pollution, the EPA is hurting business is a PROGRAMMED response. Do people like to be programmed? No. So show them it is OK to care about your childrens' future and stop pushing for more oil and stop scoffing at solar energy and hybrids. Nobody wants take away the truck, but some of us want more efficient vehicles and people resist it and try to diminish it.
Maybe we should try to push for jobs that promote cleaner energy.
Back in the day, it was patriotic to be concerned about conservation. Let's conserve our resources. Let's not pollute, littering made a Native American cry. It was also a time of loyalty to one's employer and employees treated well, having a partnership relationship, even socializing together with sharing of bonuses.
Ha ha ahaaa - WELL 83% of the So-Called Doctors Out There - Should Bail-Out - Because THEY Do NOT Belong In This Profession !!!!!
Rob, there are multiple languages to express the thought of my response, but we appear to share a common Christian language for this, so I'll speak it that way. Theologically speaking, presenting the whole truth is beyond our capacity and in fact is me centered arrogance rather than god centered humility. We each feel a part of the elephant. We speak to the small 't' truth of what we see feel and understand. Together, body of christ sort of thing, we come to some closer approximation of big T truth understanding the whole elephant. We can only do that if we are acting as a super-organism, with respect and the open heart and mind to listen to the words of others and make a good faith effort to understand not just fleshing out the facts and logical structure of what they are saying, but drinking in the spirit of what they are saying. Some of that spirit is Holy Spirit, and some of it is from another place. We must sort it out. That's where we choose, moment to moment on which side of the line we stand, and to what spirit we cast our lot with.
On the debt ceiling limit. This meme is spoken by those who argue for a school of economics that is widely discredited. Yes, we have a profound debt problem. The Austrian school says you work on the debt side. The Keynesians say austerity is precisely the wrong thing to do, and precisely how Hoover exacerbated the Depression by being persuaded by the austerity crowd.
On the contrary, Keynesians like Krugmann, Reich and Stiglitz say that reigniting the consumer economy by getting money into the hands of the middle class is the way to grow the revenue base and thereby make the economy able to pay down the debt. Once the consumer economy is firing on all cylinders, only then do you turn the austerity screws.
I don't know why this has been so difficult for Dems to explain. The GOP have this little story about how the family is sitting around the table and the Patriarch comes in and delivers the hard news that the family is spending more than it is taking in, and everyone is going to have to tighten their belts. The Reality behind that charade is that the Patriarchs of our society are taking in way way way more than they ever have. The family is being asked to make sacrifices so that the Patriarch can enlarge his already lavish lifestyle.
The trouble is, many "families" are buying Romney's nonsense. His picture is something they can relate to. Stiglitz or Krugmann gets on and it is as if they are talking quantum physics, with completely non intuitive, indirect effects which don't have the clear ring of truth that the family around a table image conveys.
I think I have something wrong about the lack of combination of emotion with argument. Take a look at what Schultz is doing on his shows. He allows himself to get worked up and he knows what he is doing. Rachel does too- listen closely to her comments admiring the skill of how Beck works. These MSNBC hosts are not neophytes. But something is not working. Can't put my finger on it. yet.
Maybe its because Ed, Rachel, Al, Lawrence, and possibly even Martin, all of who I like to listen to, even I notice they have branded themselves as godless-liberals. Emphasis on godless.
These anchors have to vary the Message. Their delivery? IMO, fine. Yet, right now, they are totally re-baptizing an audience of "believers". Independents who visit these shows main takeaway of late: numb ears.
"...many of the lawmakers themselves are taking advantage of the law's benefits to help their families, which makes it tougher for the same lawmakers to take those same benefits away from the rest of us."
Sorry, why do you think that the GOTP even gives a darn about what's beneficial to WE the PEOPLE? I mean the GOTP have health-care that many Americans can't afford, yet they have consistently denied that same "socialized medicine" to the rest of US! Congress & the President froze federal pay, and yet Congress has given themselves a raise! Hypocrisy thou art the GOTP!
It's "Groundhog Day" all over again! One more time.
No no, tactically it is actually real stupid. Obama wants to talk about Health Care.
Reason? Romneycare was the first to implement the system of the death panels that persuades most doctors to quit practicing medicine.
Interestingly, this is the problem the GOP is having with so many cash rich interest groups promoting their message. There is no coordination of message, and these groups force Romney to lose control of the news cycle and dwell on subjects where he will lose. When both the Right wing pressure group and Obama want him to talk about an issue, Romney is forced to respond. I am surprized Drudge is too stupid to figure this out. Maybe they really believe Health Care is a winner issue for them.
Look here folks, FOX and "friends" paid good money to have a poll designed to give them the results they desired. Trashing that poll is just so wrong! You however are more than welcome to trash the doctors for saying they would quit. After all divisive politics is the way to go.
The Tea Party Republicans were swept into office after promising to "Repeal and Replace Obamacare", which was nearly two years ago... so the fact that they have no "Replace" plan proves that they were lying then. Why would anyone trust them about anything they say about it now?
Well, it isn't like the House has anything better to do. (hint, jobs and economy)
Why not fill the idle days giving vent to political petulance. (HINT, JOBS AND ECONOMY)
Stop using red and blue on EVERY graph!!!
Buy a black and white monitor!
Excellent idea! Since less colors, they'll certainly be cheaper, more popular, more in demand, and hence easy to find!! I'm googling for one, now.
Just cal me Rip Van Wrinkle.
OK, Rip. I'm still kicking myself for not thinking of this first. You da man!
It's clear that the new GOP position on health care reform will be that they like all of the popular provisions of the law, but oppose the mandate and the Medicaid provisions. In other words, they're for all the things people like, they just don't want to pay for them. Just like on every other issue.
(Presumably, they will also be against the ones that hit insurance company profits, which people don't interact with directly enough for them to be popular, even though they should be.)
Looks like the GOP got one thing right when they re-labeled the Affordable Care Act. It's obvious that Obamacare(s).
Republicans voting to repeal Healthcare law again,Hnnn?what is the definition of insanity?doing the same thing over and expexting a different outcome! need I say more?
I'd sure like to know what these doctors are 'objecting' to--if they are. Every doctor I've seen in the past few years has been hoping for the ACA to get fully implemented and be found constitutional.
Caregivers will benefit.
Support is going up because the Dems are finally starting to actually explain it, in clear, simple terms that even people like me can understand. Before this, if you asked people what "Obamacare" means, I would bet that most would describe it as "another massive federal program or something, and something to do with insurance or something. It's health insurance for homeless people, isn't it? I don't even understand the insurance coverage that I already have. But I'm not dead yet, so what I have must be working. I don't want another massive federal program. Those things are usually pretty darn expensive. And what have those darn politicians done for me lately, anyway? If it ain't broke, don't fix it, that's what I say. And, since I'm not dead yet, I guess it ain't broke. Plus, I've seen a lot of people in suits on the TV saying they're against it, so I guess there must be some problems with it. If it's expensive, and there are problems with it, and I don't understand it, I'm against it."
And the rest would probably describe it as a program where Obama actually comes to your house and takes care of you. "And I don't want that. With all the Secret Service people and reporters? Besides, my house is a mess."
When you have as many that support that oppose, I must think when you ask it would be...I SUPPOSE!
Awesome one more chart.
Just what we need. So how many people will get jobs tomorrow with this epic info?
"The economoy stupid" James Carville
I never discuss ObamneyCare with anyone unless they have read all they can about it . If you know nothing about it how can you oppose it or support it? I have read up on everything I can & I can say from a platform of new knowledge that it really is good for us. Some, I believe, oppose it because of the President`s skin color. They dont have a clue so they follow Romney & the other dummies because they hate Obama. I did not vote for Obama in the last election but not because of how he looks. I will vote for him in this election because he saved America & the world from sure economic disaster. Romney & his cronies want us to vote out the "black man" & put in the clueless "white man." just because he happens to be white. This woman has never & will never vote for or against anyone on the basis of race. In a language you will understand, Romney "Show us the money!" Tell us how you plan to do for the entire USA what you, with all your self proclaimed business acumen, that you could not do for 1 state when you were its governor. Please, sir, we are waiting. We are tired of hearing you "are not Obama" because we know you are not!! You have a lighter tan & you are not as smart. So tell us your plan!!@!
'White Floridian
When will the GOP get off of health care, and on to helping the nation succede? If they continue to put party ahead of country, maybe they should be paid by the GOP instead of the people they don't seem to care about. Greg in WA
I'd rather have the GOP secede. Go start their own country, and see if any of their goofy plans work, and leave the rest of us alone.
We already have 1892, 1929, 1984, 1992 and 2009 that proves the GOP only know how to crash the stock market and run up massive deficits. The GOP run on government don't work so why is anyone surprised when the GOP are elected they prove how badly they are at making the government work.