Interesting comment about political impact of HCR for Dems from The Hill blog

[Hello_Kitty]

I don't know who this guy is or his deal but I agree with his take on public opinion of this bill:

Bruce E. Gronbeck, professor of Public Address at the University of Iowa, said:

There certainly will not be a political boost immediately for the Democrats, given where public opinion is. I suspect underlying the negatives in polling is an issue that seldom is raised: A significant segment of the population does not want to pay for the health care of those without insurance coverage. Many Americans with health insurance likely figure they're paying enough for themselves, so why should they be responsible for the 35-45 million without coverage? Let the medical and hospital communities pick them up. If that attitude is nesting in a significant portion of the country's population, then the Democrats will get no bounce from the passage of health care legislation — at least not until that attitude fades. And that could take some time.

I'm sorry to break it to y'all, but he's right, only I think Dems will not only get no bounce from this but will probably take a hit. Most voters don't give a shit about the "31 million Americans who will be covered". They care about their own situations. Most Americans polled don't think this bill will help them personally. That is not good.

[mdmc]

1. Then there is those of us that have health insurance but cannot afford treatment

and see hcr as paying more so we can afford less, so that uninsured people can have insurance and no health treatment.

[sandnsea]

2. Wow. And I'm supposed to be the stealth republican

Just how the hell do you think single payer would work?

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Totally beside the point of my OP, which is political perception

Unless you think "Just how the hell do you think single payer would work?" is a convincing talking point.

[depakid]

7. Actually, single payer would cost folks a lot less, provide better coverage and financial security

just as it does in other western nations.

Pitched that way (if it were possible with the American corporate media) a majority might figure out: gee, this is a really good deal for me and my company (or business).

Unfortunately, the point in the OP is telling- a substantial plurality of Americans would rather cut their noses off to spite their own faces, rather than see "their" tax dollars helping anyone "who doesn't deserve it."

Thus- they end up paying far more, screwing their businesses, health providers and overall economy- while subsidizing a lot folks anyway, through processes that they neither see- nor understand.

[sandnsea]

13. But the rich would pay more

That's how people want to pay for it. Repeal the Bush tax cuts on the rich to pay for other people to have health care.

It's the exact same thing as the OP says would be a problem for the Democrats.

Do you seriously not see that??

[depakid]

18. No, the rich would pay LESS than what they're paying today

though the perception that they're paying more than others for the same or similar benefits would be a stick in some of their craws.

Then again- how many of the rich are there compared with the rest of the population?

That's why financing health care via "taxing the rich" is much more popular than taxing health benefits.

[sandnsea]

19. It's still paying for somebody else's health care

That's the worries in the OP, the Dems will suffer because nobody wants to pay for someone else's benefits.

That's all I'm referring to, the damage it will do to tax one group to pay for health care for another group. That's apparently a travesty, according to the OP.

Is it a travesty or not. It can't be a travesty with every other health plan except single payer, that makes no sense.

[sandnsea]

14. And that is the political perception of single payer

Why do you support it with one, but give credence to the exact same talking points when it applies to a health plan you disagree with.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. So at least a decent plan would be unpopular instead of this POS. eom

[sandnsea]

17. So neither one would pass

according to your worries in the OP. Because nobody wants to pay for somebody else's health care and that would be a disaster for Dems. So why are you proposing it at all??

[Phx_Dem]

21. What difference does that make since single payer is not on the table and never was.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. To the UnrecBots: I'm just making an observation, not defending its merits.

I'm not saying it's right that Americans feel that way, just pointing out that they do.

[pinto]

5. A lot of vague phrases used here - "I suspect", "significant segment", "many Americans",

"likely figure", "if that attitude is nesting".

Expanding health care coverage is an historic debate, a convoluted process and a goal worth the effort. Vague pronouncements like this do little to add to them, imo.

on edit - My point being, I wish pundits would back off on the conjecture and discuss the details. The whole thing is confusing enough as it is.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. It was a blog post conjecturing about political perception

Sorry if you don't like that and don't think it's specific and detail-y enough for you but he's right and the Dems have a serious perception problem on their hands with this HCR bill.

[scubadude]

6. We aready pay for the healthcare of the 31 million. That's the rub...

and people who don't realize this are just uninformed.

Whenever anyone gets health care and doesn't pay for it, the bill goes up for everybody else, period.

Scuba

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Newsflash: Most American voters are uninformed.

And they don't think this HCR will bring their own bills down so you better come up with something better than "you're just uninformed" to sell it to them.

[Clio the Leo]

10. I overheard some people talking about "this health care bill that will provide free insurance..."

..... and I was only half-way paying attention ... but then I realized what they were talking about. Even NOW there are folks roaming the street confused that this bill will bring about the dreaded "socialized medicine!" Even as WE argue that it's a corporate sell out. It's crazy.

[doc03]

11. I am all for providing health care for everyone, but not

by taking mine away. This Cadillac Tax will cut the benefits the labor Unions fought over for decades. They take our Cadillac plan and give us a Yugo Plan, you call that progress. I have never seen Union members so pissed off about an issue since Reagan fired the air traffic controllers.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. Same here. The unions my way are furious about this.

And it should be noted that many union members work for the state and cities. These are people who are already taking pay cuts and furloughs. Now they are facing the possibility of their health benefits being reduced.

[sandnsea]

16. Or it would price your benefits accurately

So that companies couldn't tell you that you can't have a pay increase because of the oh so expensive premiums, and then turn around and invest in the insurance company they pay the premiums to. OR, create an expensive self-coverage plan that they tell you costs twice as much as it really does, to prevent you from getting more pay. And prevent the rest of us from getting coverage at a reasonable rate because otherwise the unions couldn't negotiate for "cadillac plans".

I don't really care which tax is used, but I do see the purpose of taxing companies for these phony health care "benefits".

[boppers]

20. +1

They've been telling the workers they have great health care, and then giving them over-priced shit.