Skip to main content

No it's not a typo.

It's increasingly obvious which side of the healthcare debate our corporately owned and run media comes down on.

Take a look at a few of the top news articles posted today regarding a Washington Post/ABC news poll today...

Los Angeles Times:
Public support for Obama on healthcare dips to 49%

Fox News:
Obamas public approval on Healthcare Reform slipping

Washington Post:
Obama's shrinking approval on healthcare

Boston Globe:
Obama under fire on healthcare

Reuters:
Support for Obama slips on healthcare

What the poll actually asked below the fold...

Here's the actual poll data

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The question that generated the headlies that made all the insurance executives smile today:

  1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling [ITEM]? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

b. Health care
         -------- Approve --------   ------- Disapprove ------     No  
         NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
7/18/09   49       25         24      44       11         33         7  
6/21/09   53       27         26      39       10         29         9  
4/24/09   57       NA         NA      29       NA         NA        13

All of the articles in question give complete credit to "conservative arguments" regarding cost, access, government control etc. being the cause for the decreasing numbers on generic approval ratings on healthcare.

There is no question that the data shows the generic approval numbers are decreasing, but nobody in any of the articles even approaches the possibility that maybe Obama hasn't been STRONG ENOUGH on advocating single payer healthcare or at least a mandatory public option.  The argument for this view is supported by another question in the very same poll!:

  1. Thinking about health care, one proposal to insure nearly everyone would require all Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty on their income tax, excluding those with lower incomes. It would require most employers to offer health coverage or pay a fee. There would be a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. And income taxes on people earning more than 280-thousand dollars a year would be raised to help fund the program. Taken together, would you support or oppose this plan? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

         -------- Support --------   --------- Oppose --------     No  
         NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
7/18/09   54       32         23      43       10         33         3

So when asked a more detailed version of the question, including some of the most staunchly opposed parts of the plan by conservatives, there is still majority support for the "radical left" ideas that are currently being discussed in Congress.  

Unfortunately no trend lines on this one, but the headlines could just have easily stated that 54% of the public approves of a plan to guarantee insurance for everyone, penalize employers who don't offer health coverage, create a government run private plan, and tax high income earners.   Why its the very same plan being decried as socialist by conservatives of all stripes!!

Yet, of course, which information is more in line with what the media wants to present?  

As has been since the veto of the Fairness Doctrine by Ronald Reagan the media is allied against the interests of the majority of the people.  Democrats don't and it appears never will understand the awesome power that has consolidated against them and their constituents.

Originally posted to MarkinNC on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site