Yet Another Fire Dog Lake post led me to this Progressive Change Campaign Committee poll. My interest in the poll focused on the results of two questions:
Would you favor or oppose a health care bill that does NOT include a public health insurance option and does NOT expand Medicare, but DOES require all Americans to get health insurance?
and
Would you favor or oppose a health care bill that does NOT include a public health insurance option and does NOT expand Medicare and does NOT require all Americans to buy health insurance — but DOES provide significant subsidies to low- and middle-income families to help them buy insurance?
I was specifically interested to compare the Republican responses to these two questions. The first question offers essentially what the health care bill has been boiling down to – a mandate with no public option or alternative. The second offers no mandate, no public option or alternative, but offers subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance. Republican leaders have been fighting against the first option openly without really talking about the second possibility. The results in the republican response are interesting. Those opposed to either option were virtually identical (61% and 60% respectively). Those who were undecided nearly doubled from the first question to the second because they had not been told what to think, had never considered the possibility themselves, and could not think on their feet. Because of that, the number who favored the first question – which is clearly the worst of the two – was 5 points higher than those who favored the second.
This party needs shepherds who know where to lead rather than goats who know only to oppose.
Maybe the party needs fewer sheep.
No doubt.