Robert J. Samuelson did some selective reflection of a poll recently for Newsweek. Stating that “only 43%” believe they would be better off. (Link)
“The political problem was simple: Support for “reform” was collapsing. In April, 43 percent felt they’d be better off with his “reform” and only 14 percent didn’t, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. By August, it was 36 percent to 31 percent. To restore momentum, Obama needed to convince more people that his program would help them.”
But the April report actually states on page 3 that
“A majority of Americans (56 percent) believe that the country
would be better off if Congress and the president do pass health
care reform.”
He continues to state that in August it was “36% to 31%” which is just gobbledygook to me, I have no idea what he is referring to. The report actually says that:
“The largest group (36%) continues to say their family will be better off if health reform passes — a proportion that has held relatively steady all year.”
It continues to state that those who felt they’d be worse off, had jumped 10% since July to 31%. Now the key factors of the report are these:
“Despite the increasingly passionate debate this summer, public backing for key individual elements of health reform remains steady. Substantial majorities continue to say they support individual reform components designed to expand coverage, including a public plan option (59%), an expansion of state programs such as Medicaid (80%), an individual mandate (68%) and an employer mandate (68%).”
A full 59% believe in expanding coverage including a public option, something conspicuously left absent from the analysis. This isn’t a very honest analysis that NewsWeek has allowed to penetrate their brand. On the other side of the coin, I commend Kaiser Family Foundation for posting the full numbers and a link to the questions and statistics.
If I missed something, feel free to correct me. Due diligence is the responsibility of all involved in any debate. Selective copying and pasting of supporting material derails real conversation about the good and the bad of the policy. News reporting establishments should not be news makers.