49% Oppose Health Care Reform Plan, 46% Favor It Monday, July 13, 2009 [image: Email a Friend] Email to a Friend<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/content/tipafriend/21264> ShareThis <javascript:void(0)> Advertisement [image: Can this add 10-20 years of healthy life?]<http://ad1.clickhype.com/servlet/click/zone?zid=684&cid=2846&mid=4911&pid=420&default=false&random=81370749×tamp=20090713133909&test=false&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Frasmussenreports.com%2Fpublic_content%2Fbusiness%2Fhealthcare%2Fjuly_2009%2F49_oppose_health_care_reform_plan_46_favor_it&redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.news3news.com%2Fimk5.html>
Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters now at least somewhat oppose the healthcare<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/49_oppose_health_care_reform_plan_46_favor_it#> reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, while 46% at least somewhat favor it, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just two weeks ago<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/june_2009/50_favor_obama_health_reform_plan_45_oppose_it>, 50% were for the reform plan, and 45% were opposed. The “nays” also continue to have the edge in terms of intensity. While 22% strongly favor the Democrats’ health care reform plan, 38% strongly oppose it, up four points from the previous survey. Among those voters who have health insurance<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/49_oppose_health_care_reform_plan_46_favor_it#>, opposition is even higher: 43% favor the plan, but 52% oppose it. Those who strongly oppose it outnumber those who strongly favor it by two-to-one – 40% to 20%. (Want a free daily e-mail update<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1102135387545&p=oi%5D>? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter <http://twitter.com/RasmussenPoll>. The question did not in any way describe the plan as it stands to date. It was simply presented as “the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/49_oppose_health_care_reform_plan_46_favor_it#>and congressional Democrats.” Passage of the plan by August, as the president had hoped, now seems unlikely, with Democrats arguing primarily over how to meet its estimated $1 trillion price tag. But public opinion could shift in either direction if agreement is reached and as details of the plan become clearer. Despite the decline in support, 52% of voters say it is at least somewhat likely that the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats will become law this year. including 16% who say it’s very likely. Thirty-six percent (36%) see passage as unlikely this year. These findings are virtually unchanged from two weeks ago. Rasmussen Reports will be tracking the public response to the proposal at least monthly for as long as the legislative debate continues. The partisan intensity is getting stronger, too. Sixty percent (60%) of Republicans strongly oppose the plan, up three points from two weeks ago, but only 35% of Democrats strongly favor it, down eight points from the earlier survey. Even more noticeably, among voters not affiliated with either party, those strongly opposed to the health care reform plan have risen 12 points over the past<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/49_oppose_health_care_reform_plan_46_favor_it#> two weeks from 39% to 51%. Most voters (57%) say it is at least somewhat likely that their own health insurance coverage will change if the proposed health reform plan passes, including 30% who say it is very likely. Just 12% say their own health care coverage will get better if the reform plan is passed. Thirty-nine percent (39%) expect their own coverage to get worse, while 36% say it will stay about the same. These are questions to watch because while Americans generally support the idea of health care reform, most also like their current coverage<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/may_2009/70_of_insured_rate_health_insurance_coverage_as_good_or_excellent> . Support for the reform plan is likely to turn on whether voters think their own coverage is at risk. The president recently acknowledged that while the plan won’t force Americans to change doctors, such a change might be an unintended consequence of the proposed government-run health insurance plan. Americans so far are evenly divided over whether there is a need for a public health insurance plan<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/june_2009/41_favor_public_sector_health_care_option_41_disagree> to compete with private insurers. They’re similarly divided over the urgency for health care reform<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/june_2009/americans_evenly_divided_over_urgency_of_health_care_reform>: 43% say it should move ahead right now, but 44% say reform should wait until the economy gets better. Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1102135387545%26p=oi%255D> (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/RasmussenPoll>. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news. See survey questions and toplines<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/july_2009/toplines_health_care_july_10_11_2009> . Crosstabs<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/premium_content/political_tracking_crosstabs/july_2009/crosstabs_health_care_july_10_11_2009> are available to Premium Members<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/premium_service_description> only. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > From: *Travis* > Date: Sun, Jul 12, 2009 > Subject: You Can't Win the Argument if You Can't State the Problem > > > > > > > http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/02/you-cant-win-argument-if-you-cant-state.html > > > > [image: http://i44.tinypic.com/2ldy2kj.gif] > You Can't Win the Argument if You Can't State the Problem > <http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/02/you-cant-win-argument-if-you-cant-state.html> > > A conversation on the deck of a *Politically Correct* S.S. Titanic. > > "Sir, there's an iceberg headed for us!" > > "Is it dangerous?" > > "While icebergs are generally not dangerous if they're left alone, there > are extreme parts of this iceberg which if collided with might potentially > damage our ability to stay afloat. On the other hand the iceberg was here > before us, and if we do collide with it we might merge together with it into > a stronger Iceberg\Titanic combination that would bring diversity to our > superstructure." > > "Perhaps, we should change course." > > "We could do that, but we wouldn't want the iceberg to think we were > discriminating against it." > > > > It's a joke, but there are no shortage of real life analogs for it. If you > make plain language into a forbidden thing so that saying anything is a > process that begins with careful self-censorship, and ideas are expressed in > a doubtful apologetic way to avoid giving offense, you can be sure that > people will not be able to state the nature of the problem. > > > > And if you can't state the nature of the problem, there's no hope of a > solution. And that is why conservative politicians continue losing the > debate over foreign threats and domestic social issues. While grass roots > level conservatives can state the nature of the problem, conservative > politicians very rarely do. > > In the 2008 American Presidential Election a candidate who boasted of > straight talk, left the straight talk at home, and worded everything vaguely > and focused on assuring everyone what a nice guy he was. He lost the > election to a candidate who had worked even harder to assure everyone what a > nice guy he was, and was even vaguer about his plans. > > Conservatives win elections when they can clearly state the nature of the > problem in plain talk. Because common sense is on the side of Conservatives, > while vagueness is on the side of Liberalism. That ability to plainly state > the problem was behind the success of such late 20th century leaders as > Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It is what garnered Palin a following > in the first place. > > The War on Terror is in such a dismal state because of a President who > could sort of state the nature of the problem and then lost the ability to > state it at all. Israeli and European heads of state long ago lost the > ability to state the nature of the problem. Not only did they lose the > ability, it is now actively illegal. > > And when Conservative politicians can't state the nature of the problem, > but instead begin talking around it, apologize for their half-hearted views > before they even state them, and leave the general public confused as to > what they mean, and unable to see the difference between them and their > liberal opponents. > > Why was the cartoon of Mohammed with a burning bomb fuse sticking out of > his turban so explosive? Because in a few simple lines of ink and some > limited coloring, it aptly stated the nature of the problem. Stating the > nature of the problem is a very dangerous thing. In a political culture > built on confusing the issue, stating the nature of a problem plainly is > about as explosive as free speech can get. > > The public is prepared to hear the problem plainly stated. Most of them > understood the nature of the problem on their own, or at least did until the > newspapers, the evening newscasts and the rest of the garbled newspeak of > liberalism got hold of them, and left them thinking that maybe black really > is white, and terrorists are just misunderstood people angry at injustice. > > But the problem is not extremism. The problem is not injustice or lack of > communication or not enough Americans wearing keffiyehs as a fashion > statement. The problem is Islamic terrorism. *The problem is Muslims. > Islam is not a Religion of Peace. It is an ideology built on violence, > deceit and terror, and perpetuated by violence, deceit and terror.* > > Immigration allows more and more Muslims to enter America and Europe. Every > Muslim who crosses the border increases the risk of terrorism and Muslim > violence. That is the nature of the problem. > > The problem is not capitalism. The problem is that the endless expansion of > government has made entire domestic industries unprofitable, and > overregulated the rest. Global treaties have swung trade balances over to > favor countries using slave labor for cheap manufacturing, while leaving > civilized countries in the dust. > > The real problem is the social cost of immigration. A national health care > safety net is viable for working class citizens, but it will always be > overloaded beyond sustainability by the dysfunctional overgrown families of > third world immigrants. So will all other forms of social services, not to > mention the justice system. Immigration drives organized crime, drug > trafficking, sex trafficking, terrorism and a hundred other social ills. > There are only two reasons that the immigration portals remain open, dirt > cheap labor and votes for liberal politicians. And we'd be better off > without both. > > You can't win the argument, if you can't state the problem. When > Conservative politicians are ready to begin stating the problem, they'll be > ready to start winning elections. > > > > > __._,_.___ > > > __,_._,___ > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
<<inline: image001.gif>>
