HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Mar. 3, 2007 The news division at CBS is up to its old tricks again, playing games with polls to fulfill its own predisposed agenda. The network of Dan Rather (formerly), Katie Couric, Andy Rooney and many other leftists ceased being even remotely impartial quite some time ago. Similarly, The New York Times has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the extreme left, no pretense of objectivity here. Most of what spews from CBS News and The Times comes straight from the left wing playbook and the results of a recent CBS/New York Times public http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml on the state of our health care system as well as the way those results are presented certainly falls in line with the CBS/NYT philosophy. "The Politics of Health care" is the title attached to this report along with the subtitle, "Most Americans Favor Universal Health care, Give Democrats Edge on Improving System," as if that is any surprise from a poll put out by these entities. A read of the associated article as well as the more detailed supporting data reveals little or anything which supports the claim that claim of that most Americans favor "universal health care". "Nine out of 10 say the system needs at least fundamental changes, including 36 percent who favor a complete overhaul," is the line trumpeted in the article. Yet, the poll question which led to this claim appears rather subject: "U.S. Health Care System Needs..." After this, three options are presented, "Minor changes; Fundamental changes; or To be completely rebuilt". 54% responded that "fundamental changes" are needed and 36% stated that the system needs complete rebuilding, with only 8% answering that only "minor changes" are required. Yet, there appears to be a gap in the range of the possible answers to this question. Intuitively, it seems that there should be a possible answer that falls between "minor changes" and "fundamental changes". Personally, I do not favor any huge changes to our health care system, but I would tend to agree that something more than "minor changes" might be needed. How is someone with my viewpoint supposed to
respond here? Further, what exactly are "fundamental changes" and how do these differ from a complete rebuild? The terminology could mean something completely different to different people. The pollsters then treated all of three of the answers as if they are on a comprehensive progressive scale in stating that 90% want "at least" fundamental changes". The article then acknowledges that "the majority" of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care before stating that it is a "different story when it comes to the cost of care". We are told that 41% are "very satisfied" with the quality of care in the article, but we have to refer to the separate detailed results link to learn that an additional 36% of respondents stated they are "somewhat satisfied" with the care quality. So, a total of 77% of respondents are "at least" somewhat satisfied with their health care quality. The writers were eager to add together two separate categories for the purpose of showing how many people want changes to the system, but were apparently reluctant to perform that same task to demonstrate relative satisfaction with the quality. Moreover, a study of the detailed results reveals that 57% of these same respondents, who are satisfied with their own health care quality, are generally dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the country. How can this be true? Over three-quarters of respondents are reasonably satisfied with their health care services, but these same people are generally displeased with quality of care in general. This appears to equate to other polls which have shown the vast majority of people to be very satisfied with their own financial situation but worried about the financial health of the country in general. My theory is that it is the constant negative drumbeat of the media which produces seemingly contradictory results like this. Individuals are relatively happy with their own situation, but worried overall, because they hear so much negative news on a daily basis. Another poll question, "Should Government Guarantee Health Insurance For All?" yielded a 64% positive response. My assumption is that it is this question which led to the sub-title of the article. It is, however, patently incorrect to conclude that the majority of the population wants "universal health care" based upon the response to this question. Guaranteeing that those without health insurance have coverage is not the same thing as preferring universal coverage. Some form of bridge insurance, to cover those who are between jobs or otherwise uncovered, would ensure coverage for all, but is far short of the common meaning of "universal coverage," where the government runs the whole show. The entire tone of this piece is nothing more than agenda-driven journalism. Take a poll which is specifically engineered to yield a certain result, then overemphasize the responses which support that agenda while giving much less attention to information which
contradicts it. The article and supporting detail then goes on to exclaim how the Democrats are really the party to solve the health care woes. I could find nothing, however, which provides a breakdown of the number of Democrat and Republican respondents, although we do get a breakdown of some results by Democrats and Republicans in percentage terms and we are enthusiastically told that even many Republican respondents want change and have no confidence in Bush. Oddly, the detail provides a breakdown of confidence Democrat voters have in the various Democrat candidates in solving the "health care crisis," and this is juxtaposed to the confidence in President Bush to do the same. Yet, there is no breakdown provided in terms of confidence in the Republican candidates to solve the issues. Do CBS News and The New York Times realize that George W. Bush is not running for office again? A fair comparison of 2008 Democrat candidates should reasonably be weighed against the Republican
candidates for that election and not President Bush. Finally, it would seem that those who craft a public opinion poll which leads to sweeping conclusions based on its results, as the authors of this one have done, would more adequately frame the issue for the respondents. Sure, it's relatively easy to get a majority of respondents to state that change is needed in the health care system, but shouldn't it be pointed out that change can come with a cost? Shouldn't poll questions point out that universal health care, where it is practiced, has resulted in significant wait times for care and treatment, even for deadly diseases? Sick people can literally wait for months, even up to a year, for urgent cancer treatment in Great Britain. The waiting time for a routine MRI can be many weeks in Canada. Further, shouldn't questions point out the potential economic impact of nationalized health care when they ask if people favor it? Most of Canada has a significant Goods and Services tax which adds tremendously to the cost of
clothing, cars and just about anything else consumers purchase in that country. Nationalizing health care also runs a distinct risk of even lower quality of care for many reasons. Shouldn't this be pointed out? Everyone is in favor of solving the world's problems when it doesn't cost them any time, inconvenience or their own hard-earned money. It's quite another story when the downside risks are clearly pointed out to them. The CBS News/NYT poll was clearly formulated to achieve a specific result and, for the most part, the authors of this poll got what they were after. The interpretation of the results of this poll was skewed even more toward the predisposed theme, that universal health coverage is wanted by most all and that Democrats are the best party to give it to us. The detailed results even threw in a little smattering of Bush-bashing to complete the effect. There is nothing new in this poll or story and this coverage certainly does not help move the entire issue forward in any meaningful way. The public should demand more from its "objective" media than this effort provides.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
