When will the progressive left admit that ObamaCare is just one version of “spread the wealth? Because the healthcare plan mandates coverage for all illness or healthcare from first dollar, rather than only spending money for the indigent and extremely sick. Worse, the mandate enforces taxes, rather than allowing charity or compassionate care.
Slate.com has a blog post concerning ObamaCare written by Jacob Weisberg, entitled “Let him die.” The author flatly implies that one or more of the Republican Presidential candidates would let a patient die if he can not pay for needed care.
Forget that none of the candidates said any such thing. One man in the audience at Monday night’s debate for Republican Candidates in Orlando shouted “yeah!” when one of the moderators asked Ron Paul the question. There’s dispute about whether the shout came before or after Congressman Paul answered, “No.”
This incident is being cited as “playing the death card” by another blogger, at the University of Chicago School of Law’s Richard Epstein, who is not satisfied with calling Republicans names. He suggests that rationing is reasonable:
One telling illustration about this example is that Weisberg does not tell us whether the individual who receives this care lives or dies when the treatment is over. If we assume the latter, the initial question is whether intensive care at, say, $10,000 to $20,000 per day represents the best use of social resources. A bit of simple arithmetic says that society has spent $1.83 million to $3.66 million on a venture that may well have kept this person alive in a comatose state or have subjected him to repeated invasive treatments when hospice care may well have been preferable.
(Try not to think about “death panels.”)
Hat tip to Texas Medical Association and Drs.
New poll from Public Policy Polling released today.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 23, 2011
INTERVIEWS: Tom Jensen 919-744-6312
IF YOU HAVE BASIC METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE E-MAIL firstname.lastname@example.org,OR CONSULT THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF THE PRESS RELEASE
Perry debuts in lead in Iowa caucus race
Raleigh, N.C. – Despite being a write-in candidate who had just officially declared his candidacy the morning before balloting, Rick Perry got more votes at the Ames Straw Poll a week and a half ago than did four other candidates who were listed, including previous frontrunner Mitt Romney. Now Perry is seriously challenging Romney’s dominant hold on the race, which Michele Bachmann had also begun to do in recent weeks. The current three-candidate top tier is now cemented with PPP’s latest poll of potential Iowa caucus goers, but the media would be remiss to forget about Ron Paul, who placed a close second to Bachmann at Ames.
Polled for the first time here, Perry leads with 22% over Romney’s 19%, Bachmann’s18%, Paul’s 16%, Herman Cain’s 7%, Newt Gingrich’s and Rick Santorum’s 5%, and Jon Huntsman’s 3%. Santorum had not been polled here before either.
If Sarah Palin jumps into the race, she would harm Bachmann and Paul but hardly makes a dent in Romney’s or Perry’s support. Perry would still lead with 21% over Romney’s 18%, Bachmann’s 15%, Paul’s 12%, and Palin’s 10%.
The two Texans, Perry and Paul, are the most personally popular Republicans who are running or could potentially. Perry’s 56-24 favorability rating, up 27 points from 21-16 in May, tops Paul’s 53-29 (up 11 points from 42-29), Santorum’s 44-22 (+11 from 29-18), Chris Christie’s 43-21 (-8 from 42-12), Ryan’s 38-21 (-11 from 42-14), Palin’s 52-36 (-12 from 59-31), Bachmann’s 47-35 (-25 from 53-16 in May), Rudy Giuliani’s 43-34 (-9 from 49-31), Romney’s 45-38 (-10 from 51-34), and Cain’s 42-35 (-7 from 38-24.)
“All the momentum in the Republican race is on Rick Perry’s side now,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Michele Bachmann’s growing support over the last two months has now stopped and Mitt Romney is actually losing voters in Iowa.”
PPP surveyed 317 usual Iowa Republican primary voters from August 19th to 21st. The margin of error for the survey is +/-5.5%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews. PPP is a Democratic polling company, but polling expert Nate Silver of the New York Times found that its surveys in 2010 actually exhibited a slight bias toward Republican candidates.
The questions and results are available in pdf, here.
It’s important to note that this poll was conducted in late May and early June and was published in early July, before Governor Perry announced his entry into the race. For some reason, the results are getting re-posted on various Paul blogs and Facebook sites.
Moreover, look at the column on their methods:
Most importantly, they polled Texas Republican Primary voters, while our sample focused on highly involved Republican voters with clusters in the most politically active Republican areas of the state and using lists taken not only from voter rolls but also from other sources likely to identify voters whose awareness of candidates and issues is substantially higher. Basically, they polled voters and we polled more of the grassroots party activists who will influence those voters.
In other words, rather than choosing likely voters or even Republican Primary voters, they cherry-picked who they polled.
Another blog has this quote from founder Dave Nalle:
“In that poll,” he replied, “It was a mix of precinct chairs, campaign donors, and multiple-repeat voters in Republican primaries. So at the very least they were reliable Republican voters, but a majority of them, about 55%, were actively involved in party organizations, either in clubs or as precinct chairs. I was able to get lists because I have connections within the Texas Republican Party. I was able to get lists from local Republican clubs and from precinct chairs in those parties.”
In contrast, a poll of Republican Primary voters at about the same time showed that Perry would have received 31% of the vote.