Weak Tea
Politics is a funny sport, especially in California, as this Los Angeles Times article points out. This election year the GOP has "the wind at its back" (a dubious assertion, in my opinion), and yet it may have some problems in California because of the new healthcare law.
Republican candidates across the nation are confident that opposition to President Obama's healthcare law will deliver them electoral victories. But in California, the three GOP Senate candidates vying to take on Sen. Barbara Boxer face a much more daunting task: convincing a majority of Californians who support the bill that they are wrong. ...
Former Rep. Tom Campbell, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina differ in their approaches to fixing healthcare, but all have said the measure is unconstitutional and must be repealed.
Their stance aligns them with the state's registered Republicans. In a recent L.A. Times/USC poll, 59% of registered Republicans surveyed said they would be less likely to support a candidate who supported the healthcare legislation.
But come November, the Republican nominee will need independent and Democratic voters if he or she is to defeat Boxer. About 46% of California voters surveyed in the same poll said they would be more likely to vote for a politician who had supported the health bill, while 29% said they would not. Just over half said they believed the country would be better off because of the package.
[The poll questions (and some graphics illustrating the responses) can be found here.]
What surprised me about the survey and the article is that slightly more than half of the state's electorate think the health care measure will improve things in the country and almost that many will translate that opinion into votes. Now, I think there are a couple of sections of the law that will be helpful for a lot of Americans, especially since the White House and Congress refused to even consider a single payer option, chief among them the section that forces insurance companies to accept people with preexisting conditions. The law itself, however, benefits insurance companies far more than it does the people who will have coverage.
What the Republicans are apparently emphasizing is the unconstitutionality of the law, specifically the requirement that everyone buy health insurance or face a fine. Shades of Evil Big Government!
At least at this point that doesn't seem to be working. Most states require car insurance before licensing any vehicle and there are some pretty stiff fines for failure to have insurance. In California, any traffic stop by the police means showing a driver's license AND proof of insurance. As a result, I think most people understand the concept and have found ways to live with it.
As to the Big Government issue, the recent tragedies in West Virginia and in the Gulf of Mexico have pretty much reminded the people of all states just how important the federal government is with respect to our health and welfare. Somehow that meme just isn't resonating the way the Republicans expected, especially among independents and conservative Democrats, even with all the media exposure of such movements as the Tea Partiers.
One thing is certain, however: election 2010 is bound to be an interesting one. Senator Boxer is certainly not a shoe-in this time around, but she's not yet ready to be counted out.
Republican candidates across the nation are confident that opposition to President Obama's healthcare law will deliver them electoral victories. But in California, the three GOP Senate candidates vying to take on Sen. Barbara Boxer face a much more daunting task: convincing a majority of Californians who support the bill that they are wrong. ...
Former Rep. Tom Campbell, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina differ in their approaches to fixing healthcare, but all have said the measure is unconstitutional and must be repealed.
Their stance aligns them with the state's registered Republicans. In a recent L.A. Times/USC poll, 59% of registered Republicans surveyed said they would be less likely to support a candidate who supported the healthcare legislation.
But come November, the Republican nominee will need independent and Democratic voters if he or she is to defeat Boxer. About 46% of California voters surveyed in the same poll said they would be more likely to vote for a politician who had supported the health bill, while 29% said they would not. Just over half said they believed the country would be better off because of the package.
[The poll questions (and some graphics illustrating the responses) can be found here.]
What surprised me about the survey and the article is that slightly more than half of the state's electorate think the health care measure will improve things in the country and almost that many will translate that opinion into votes. Now, I think there are a couple of sections of the law that will be helpful for a lot of Americans, especially since the White House and Congress refused to even consider a single payer option, chief among them the section that forces insurance companies to accept people with preexisting conditions. The law itself, however, benefits insurance companies far more than it does the people who will have coverage.
What the Republicans are apparently emphasizing is the unconstitutionality of the law, specifically the requirement that everyone buy health insurance or face a fine. Shades of Evil Big Government!
At least at this point that doesn't seem to be working. Most states require car insurance before licensing any vehicle and there are some pretty stiff fines for failure to have insurance. In California, any traffic stop by the police means showing a driver's license AND proof of insurance. As a result, I think most people understand the concept and have found ways to live with it.
As to the Big Government issue, the recent tragedies in West Virginia and in the Gulf of Mexico have pretty much reminded the people of all states just how important the federal government is with respect to our health and welfare. Somehow that meme just isn't resonating the way the Republicans expected, especially among independents and conservative Democrats, even with all the media exposure of such movements as the Tea Partiers.
One thing is certain, however: election 2010 is bound to be an interesting one. Senator Boxer is certainly not a shoe-in this time around, but she's not yet ready to be counted out.
Labels: California, Election 2010, Health Care
posted by Diane at 3:43 AM
2 Comments:
Once you realize that the phrase "government spending" means "government spending benefiting teenage immigrant welfare mothers on dope", it all comes together. (This is why it's OK to spend billions on cleaning up after BP's little oil accident - it benefits Republican voters. IOKIYAR!)
Billions for bombs, not one cent for schools!
Most states require car insurance before licensing any vehicle and there are some pretty stiff fines for failure to have insurance. In California, any traffic stop by the police means showing a driver's license AND proof of insurance. As a result, I think most people understand the concept and have found ways to live with it.
There is no requirement for people who do not drive to have a drivers license or buy insurance.
You will note that every state declares driving to be a privilege, not a right.
This analogy suggests that health care is a privilege, not a right.
You can certainly make that argument. I would suggest that the long term consequences of winning it will be catastrophic.
Post a Comment
<< Home