/PRNewswire-/ -- On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a new public opinion survey finds that seventy-nine percent of Americans sharply disapprove of the decision and support a constitutional amendment to reverse the Court's ruling. The study, conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of Free Speech for People, confirmed previous polls that found wide-ranging and strong disapproval for the decision but is the most comprehensive to date to measure public support for enacting a constitutional amendment. In the 111th Congress, Members, including Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD4) introduced amendment bills seeking to overturn the Citizens United decision.
"This study demonstrates that across a broad political spectrum, the American people oppose the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC," said John Bonifaz, co-founder and director of Free Speech for People. "They are ready for a constitutional amendment campaign that will restore our democracy and return corporations to their place as economic rather than political entities."
The survey also examined public opinion regarding corporations and the current regulatory system and found little confidence in both. Only 5% of voters feel that the current rules and regulations controlling the influence of large corporations on legislation and enforcement are working well. Additionally, only 14% have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in corporations, while 61% worry a great deal or quite a bit that corporations have too much influence and control over government rules and regulations. Underscoring this lack of trust is that better than four in five (82%) Americans feel corporations care mostly about profits, cut corners on services, overcharge on prices, and do not treat their customers well.
According to the survey, the public also has little faith in the current political system. Only 20% of voters claim to be satisfied with the current U.S. political system, while 57% are dissatisfied. What's more, just 14% of voters have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the political system, while 52% have little confidence.
The survey found support for a constitutional amendment "to make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people" crosses all party lines. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. "Each of the arguments in favor of passing a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision," Hart Research reports, "is more convincing than any of the arguments against it, and the least effective argument against passage is that it will take too long and is not a good use of Congress's time."
"In many different ways," Hart Research concludes, "the American public makes clear its disapproval of the ruling in the Citizens United case and signals its broad support for a Constitutional amendment to overturn this decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. There is a clear desire to readjust the level of influence that corporations have in the nation's political, legislative, and regulatory systems."
A full report of the survey findings can be found here.
http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/me10129b_public.pdf
Showing posts with label survey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label survey. Show all posts
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Pass the BBA Releases National Survey Results: Clear Majority of Voters Want a BBA
/PRNewswire/ -- Pass the BBA today released the results of a survey they commissioned through Wilson Research Strategies (WRS) on voter attitudes towards a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The newly-formed Pass the BBA wishes to establish a baseline of national voter sentiment before they begin a targeted grassroots campaign to educate voters about their respective representative's position on the BBA over the next several months.
In this national survey, 1011 adults were asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to support their Congressional representative if they opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. An overwhelming majority of 57% answered that they would be less like to support their representative if they opposed the BBA. The follow-up question asked whether if, should the representative vote against a BBA, would they be more likely to vote against them in their next primary election. 45% responded that they would be more likely to vote against that representative in the next primary. The survey questions can be viewed here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions.pdf
The cross-tab data is here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions_Crosstabs.pdf
"We knew that the voters wanted real change in November, but these results clearly show that they are willing to support more change in 2012 if their representatives don't deliver on key issues like this. Congress has a limited opportunity to achieve results, and we are pushing them to vote for a balanced budged amendment to the Constitution by October 1, 2011," said the Hon. Ken Blackwell, national chairman of Pass the BBA.
Several Members of Congress have introduced BBA bills, and several more are expected to be introduced in the upcoming months. Pass the BBA has endorsed efforts that balance the budget through spending cuts, require a supermajority vote in each chamber to raise taxes or increase debt and require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Pass the BBA's model language was drafted by their Honorary Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and can be read here: http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/
"This is a good starting point, and we know these numbers will grow dramatically once we begin educating voters about their representative's tax and spend habit, or cynical efforts to convince the folks back home that they are fiscally responsible when they block efforts to stop the growth of government. We hope Congress acts quickly and decisively on this issue, the voters are watching carefully and so are we, " concluded Blackwell.
Wilson Research Strategies is one of the top polling and research firms in the country, and has conducted thousands of public opinion studies for over 100 of the Fortune 500, influential trade and professional associations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments. more information on their work can be accessed here: http://www.w-r-s.com/home/
Pass the BBA has emerged as the leading advocate for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) and is focused on having a vote on the BBA by October 1, 2011, which is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Pass the BBA is a non-partisan, grassroots movement actively gathering 5,000 to 10,000 voter signatures in all 435 congressional districts demanding fiscal accountability from their leaders. The Hon. Ken Blackwell and former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner serve as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.
-----
In this national survey, 1011 adults were asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to support their Congressional representative if they opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. An overwhelming majority of 57% answered that they would be less like to support their representative if they opposed the BBA. The follow-up question asked whether if, should the representative vote against a BBA, would they be more likely to vote against them in their next primary election. 45% responded that they would be more likely to vote against that representative in the next primary. The survey questions can be viewed here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions.pdf
The cross-tab data is here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions_Crosstabs.pdf
"We knew that the voters wanted real change in November, but these results clearly show that they are willing to support more change in 2012 if their representatives don't deliver on key issues like this. Congress has a limited opportunity to achieve results, and we are pushing them to vote for a balanced budged amendment to the Constitution by October 1, 2011," said the Hon. Ken Blackwell, national chairman of Pass the BBA.
Several Members of Congress have introduced BBA bills, and several more are expected to be introduced in the upcoming months. Pass the BBA has endorsed efforts that balance the budget through spending cuts, require a supermajority vote in each chamber to raise taxes or increase debt and require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Pass the BBA's model language was drafted by their Honorary Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and can be read here: http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/
"This is a good starting point, and we know these numbers will grow dramatically once we begin educating voters about their representative's tax and spend habit, or cynical efforts to convince the folks back home that they are fiscally responsible when they block efforts to stop the growth of government. We hope Congress acts quickly and decisively on this issue, the voters are watching carefully and so are we, " concluded Blackwell.
Wilson Research Strategies is one of the top polling and research firms in the country, and has conducted thousands of public opinion studies for over 100 of the Fortune 500, influential trade and professional associations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments. more information on their work can be accessed here: http://www.w-r-s.com/home/
Pass the BBA has emerged as the leading advocate for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) and is focused on having a vote on the BBA by October 1, 2011, which is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Pass the BBA is a non-partisan, grassroots movement actively gathering 5,000 to 10,000 voter signatures in all 435 congressional districts demanding fiscal accountability from their leaders. The Hon. Ken Blackwell and former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner serve as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.
-----
Friday, November 19, 2010
Third National Poll Confirms: Americans' Concern About Nasty Politics Continues to Climb
/PRNewswire/ -- Building on its April 2010 survey on the growing incivility in politics, the Center for Political Participation (CPP) at Allegheny College, in conjunction with Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW), today released the findings of new polling data that suggests Americans see politics as increasingly nasty and that the current political tone may be harmful to our democracy. Still, an overwhelming majority believe that passionate but respectful campaigning is possible.
Some 63 percent of respondents in the latest civility poll, conducted during the last four days leading up to the November midterm elections, believe politics has become less civil since President Barack Obama took office nearly two years ago. This is up from 48 percent in the April survey, and up from 58 percent in a second poll conducted in September, two full months before the midterms.
"You have to remember," said Professor Daniel M. Shea, director of the CPP, "our first wave of polling was done immediately following the health care reform vote. Things were rather hot in Washington. The dramatic increase in the perceptions of negativity since then is stunning. Things have gotten even worse."
A full 46 percent of registered American voters in the November poll said this year's election was the "most negative they had ever seen." An additional 26 percent said that it was "more negative than in the past," but they had seen worse. Only 4 percent said that campaigns were more positive than in the past.
"Sure, memories are short and it's common for all of us to think the most recent election was the worst," said Shea. "But these polling results are powerful. Nearly three out of four people believe this election was one of the nastiest they have ever seen."
A majority of voters (64 percent) polled in November said that the degenerating tone of politics is unhealthy for our democracy. Only 17 percent think the tone of campaigns is healthy for our democracy, while 14 percent think the tone has little impact on democracy. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats who viewed 2010 as the most negative election said that incivility in politics hurts our democracy. Independents and Republicans also see a detrimental effect, with independents at 78 percent and Republicans at 72 percent.
Although a majority of African Americans and Hispanics believe the negative tone of campaigns hurts our democracy, these groups (55 percent black, 50 percent Hispanic) were less likely than whites (67 percent) to consider this as harmful to democracy.
Even so, the November poll finds that voters remain optimistic about candidates' ability to run positive campaigns. Nine out of 10 registered voters believe it is "possible for candidates to run for office in aggressive, but in respectful ways."
"This percentage actually grew by 5 percent from our mid-September poll," said Michael Wolf of Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne, co-author of the study. "Just because the public views campaigns as brutal, particularly this year's, doesn't mean they think it has to be that way. At least for now there remains some optimism out there."
Does their perception of negativity in politics have an impact on voters' willingness to get involved? Thirty percent of all registered voters questioned in the poll reported that the tone of the midterm elections made them less interested in becoming engaged in the process. Independents and Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to say they were less interested due to the tone. Indeed, a majority of Republicans who said that the 2010 election was the most negative they had ever seen said the uncivil tone would actually push them to participate. Additionally, African-Americans—who on the whole are loyal to Democrats—were much more likely than all Americans to say that negative campaigning made them more interested in getting involved in elections.
Another sore subject for voters was the role that so-called "outside money" – through which interest groups not located in a particular district flood a race with ads, mailings and phone calls -- has played in campaigning. Just less than 60 percent of respondents oppose this practice. Democratic respondents were more opposed to outside money (69 percent) than independents (57 percent opposed). A majority of Republicans (51 percent) also oppose this practice.
"It's a bit early to know with certainty, but early evidence suggests a strong majority of outside money was aimed at helping the GOP retake control of Congress, and a vast majority of these ads were hard-hitting and negative," Shea said. "It would make sense that some of these ads actually revved up GOP voters."
This recent wave of polling for Allegheny and IPFW was conducted by SurveyUSA between Oct. 28 and Nov. 1, 2010. In all, 1,252 registered voters were contacted, yielding a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.
For a complete set of the data, along with cross tabulations and graphic displays of the results, see: http://www.allegheny.edu/novemberpoll. The survey findings from the September poll, along with charts and cross tabulations, can be accessed at: www.allegheny.edu/septemberpoll. The April 2010 survey, "Nastiness, Name-calling & Negativity," is available at www.allegheny.edu/civility.
Some 63 percent of respondents in the latest civility poll, conducted during the last four days leading up to the November midterm elections, believe politics has become less civil since President Barack Obama took office nearly two years ago. This is up from 48 percent in the April survey, and up from 58 percent in a second poll conducted in September, two full months before the midterms.
"You have to remember," said Professor Daniel M. Shea, director of the CPP, "our first wave of polling was done immediately following the health care reform vote. Things were rather hot in Washington. The dramatic increase in the perceptions of negativity since then is stunning. Things have gotten even worse."
A full 46 percent of registered American voters in the November poll said this year's election was the "most negative they had ever seen." An additional 26 percent said that it was "more negative than in the past," but they had seen worse. Only 4 percent said that campaigns were more positive than in the past.
"Sure, memories are short and it's common for all of us to think the most recent election was the worst," said Shea. "But these polling results are powerful. Nearly three out of four people believe this election was one of the nastiest they have ever seen."
A majority of voters (64 percent) polled in November said that the degenerating tone of politics is unhealthy for our democracy. Only 17 percent think the tone of campaigns is healthy for our democracy, while 14 percent think the tone has little impact on democracy. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats who viewed 2010 as the most negative election said that incivility in politics hurts our democracy. Independents and Republicans also see a detrimental effect, with independents at 78 percent and Republicans at 72 percent.
Although a majority of African Americans and Hispanics believe the negative tone of campaigns hurts our democracy, these groups (55 percent black, 50 percent Hispanic) were less likely than whites (67 percent) to consider this as harmful to democracy.
Even so, the November poll finds that voters remain optimistic about candidates' ability to run positive campaigns. Nine out of 10 registered voters believe it is "possible for candidates to run for office in aggressive, but in respectful ways."
"This percentage actually grew by 5 percent from our mid-September poll," said Michael Wolf of Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne, co-author of the study. "Just because the public views campaigns as brutal, particularly this year's, doesn't mean they think it has to be that way. At least for now there remains some optimism out there."
Does their perception of negativity in politics have an impact on voters' willingness to get involved? Thirty percent of all registered voters questioned in the poll reported that the tone of the midterm elections made them less interested in becoming engaged in the process. Independents and Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to say they were less interested due to the tone. Indeed, a majority of Republicans who said that the 2010 election was the most negative they had ever seen said the uncivil tone would actually push them to participate. Additionally, African-Americans—who on the whole are loyal to Democrats—were much more likely than all Americans to say that negative campaigning made them more interested in getting involved in elections.
Another sore subject for voters was the role that so-called "outside money" – through which interest groups not located in a particular district flood a race with ads, mailings and phone calls -- has played in campaigning. Just less than 60 percent of respondents oppose this practice. Democratic respondents were more opposed to outside money (69 percent) than independents (57 percent opposed). A majority of Republicans (51 percent) also oppose this practice.
"It's a bit early to know with certainty, but early evidence suggests a strong majority of outside money was aimed at helping the GOP retake control of Congress, and a vast majority of these ads were hard-hitting and negative," Shea said. "It would make sense that some of these ads actually revved up GOP voters."
This recent wave of polling for Allegheny and IPFW was conducted by SurveyUSA between Oct. 28 and Nov. 1, 2010. In all, 1,252 registered voters were contacted, yielding a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.
For a complete set of the data, along with cross tabulations and graphic displays of the results, see: http://www.allegheny.edu/novemberpoll. The survey findings from the September poll, along with charts and cross tabulations, can be accessed at: www.allegheny.edu/septemberpoll. The April 2010 survey, "Nastiness, Name-calling & Negativity," is available at www.allegheny.edu/civility.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Nation's Frontline Physicians Unhappy with Health Care Reform Measures
/PRNewswire/ -- The Physicians Foundation today released the results of a national survey of physicians that finds strong negative feelings towards the new health care reform law and fear that patient care will suffer in the months and years ahead. The survey was intended to gauge physicians' initial reaction to the passage of health reform and to learn the ways in which they plan to respond to it.
The research, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, a national physician search and consulting firm, on behalf of the Foundation, comes on the two-year anniversary of the Foundation's first national physician survey (available at www.physiciansfoundation.org) that found growing dissatisfaction among doctors as they struggle with less time for patient care and increased time dealing with non-clinical paperwork, difficulty receiving reimbursement and burdensome government regulations. The new research reinforces those findings and shows that the new health care reform could intensify existing problems for doctors and worsen the shortage of primary care doctors, making it more difficult for patients to access quality care.
"Physicians support reform; in fact, we were the ones leading the fight against the status quo. But this new research shows that doctors strongly believe the law is not working like it needs to – for them, or for their patients," said Lou Goodman, PhD, President. "For any health care reform effort to be successful, it must include the viewpoint of our nation's doctors. Their perspective from the front-lines of patient care is critical in determining what's broken in our system and how we can fix it."
Notably, physicians also felt that Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate formula (SGR) had an equally large impact on their practices as health care reform. Proposed cuts have been repeatedly put off by Congress and in January will reach approximately 30% if not addressed.
"Despite the high profile nature of the health reform discussion, physicians are equally concerned over the impact of SGR on their practices," said Walker Ray, MD, Research Committee Chair. "The fact that SGR was not addressed as part of this year's reform effort shows that we don't have a comprehensive solution yet, and also that doctors simply didn't have a voice at the table during the reform debate. That needs to change."
Key research findings include:
* The majority of physicians (60%) said health reform will compel them to close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients. Of these, 93% said they will be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicaid patients, while 87% said they would be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicare patients.
* 40% of physicians said they would drop out of patient care in the next one to three years, either by retiring, seeking a non-clinical job within healthcare, or by seeking a non-healthcare related job.
* The majority of physicians (59%) said health reform will cause them to spend less time with patients.
* While over half of physicians said health reform will cause patient volumes in their practices to increase, 69% said they no longer have the time or resources to see additional patients in their practices while still maintaining quality of care.
* 67% of physicians said their initial reaction to passage of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was either "somewhat negative" or "very negative" and a great majority (86%) believes the viewpoint of physicians was not adequately represented to policy makers during the run-up to passage of the law.
* Physicians are almost evenly divided over the relative importance of SGR (36%) and health reform (34%) to their practices, while 30% are unsure which will have the greatest impact.
The research, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, a national physician search and consulting firm, on behalf of the Foundation, comes on the two-year anniversary of the Foundation's first national physician survey (available at www.physiciansfoundation.org) that found growing dissatisfaction among doctors as they struggle with less time for patient care and increased time dealing with non-clinical paperwork, difficulty receiving reimbursement and burdensome government regulations. The new research reinforces those findings and shows that the new health care reform could intensify existing problems for doctors and worsen the shortage of primary care doctors, making it more difficult for patients to access quality care.
"Physicians support reform; in fact, we were the ones leading the fight against the status quo. But this new research shows that doctors strongly believe the law is not working like it needs to – for them, or for their patients," said Lou Goodman, PhD, President. "For any health care reform effort to be successful, it must include the viewpoint of our nation's doctors. Their perspective from the front-lines of patient care is critical in determining what's broken in our system and how we can fix it."
Notably, physicians also felt that Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate formula (SGR) had an equally large impact on their practices as health care reform. Proposed cuts have been repeatedly put off by Congress and in January will reach approximately 30% if not addressed.
"Despite the high profile nature of the health reform discussion, physicians are equally concerned over the impact of SGR on their practices," said Walker Ray, MD, Research Committee Chair. "The fact that SGR was not addressed as part of this year's reform effort shows that we don't have a comprehensive solution yet, and also that doctors simply didn't have a voice at the table during the reform debate. That needs to change."
Key research findings include:
* The majority of physicians (60%) said health reform will compel them to close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients. Of these, 93% said they will be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicaid patients, while 87% said they would be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicare patients.
* 40% of physicians said they would drop out of patient care in the next one to three years, either by retiring, seeking a non-clinical job within healthcare, or by seeking a non-healthcare related job.
* The majority of physicians (59%) said health reform will cause them to spend less time with patients.
* While over half of physicians said health reform will cause patient volumes in their practices to increase, 69% said they no longer have the time or resources to see additional patients in their practices while still maintaining quality of care.
* 67% of physicians said their initial reaction to passage of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was either "somewhat negative" or "very negative" and a great majority (86%) believes the viewpoint of physicians was not adequately represented to policy makers during the run-up to passage of the law.
* Physicians are almost evenly divided over the relative importance of SGR (36%) and health reform (34%) to their practices, while 30% are unsure which will have the greatest impact.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Voters Overwhelmingly Support Super-Majority Requirement for New Entitlement Programs
/PRNewswire/ -- PreserveOurFuture.org today released polling data that shows Americans overwhelmingly want to make it harder for Congress to create new entitlement programs. Seventy percent support requiring a two-thirds super-majority vote in Congress to create new entitlement programs. And nearly sixty percent believe Congress should pass a Constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlement programs.
David Manns, founder of PreserveOurFuture.org, said "The American people understand the fiscal calamity our nation is heading towards, and desperately want to make it harder for Congress to saddle us with ever more costly programs. It is stunning that a majority of Americans are already willing to amend the Constitution to make it harder to create new entitlements, even before our nationwide campaign kicks in. America wants action, and office holders who fail to deliver do so at their own peril."
The survey also found that 67 percent of Independents and 62 percent of Democrats favor requiring a two-thirds vote to create new entitlement programs. In addition, 75 percent of African American voters support requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlements, followed by 71 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of white voters. This broad support spanning political parties and different demographic groups demonstrates the widespread concern that Americans have about the reckless spending behavior of elected officials who are out of touch with concerns of their constituents.
PreserveOurFuture.org is a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy group based in Russellville, Arkansas, and funded by individuals across the political spectrum. In launching the new non-profit, Manns said, "PreserveOurFuture.org has one simple goal – to make it more difficult to create permanent entitlement programs that cost trillions of dollars we don't have and can't afford. In short, enacting super programs should require a super-majority."
The nationwide poll was conducted by the Tarrance Group from September 12-14, 2010. The margin of error is 3.5% and the sample size was 800 likely voters.
David Manns, founder of PreserveOurFuture.org, said "The American people understand the fiscal calamity our nation is heading towards, and desperately want to make it harder for Congress to saddle us with ever more costly programs. It is stunning that a majority of Americans are already willing to amend the Constitution to make it harder to create new entitlements, even before our nationwide campaign kicks in. America wants action, and office holders who fail to deliver do so at their own peril."
The survey also found that 67 percent of Independents and 62 percent of Democrats favor requiring a two-thirds vote to create new entitlement programs. In addition, 75 percent of African American voters support requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlements, followed by 71 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of white voters. This broad support spanning political parties and different demographic groups demonstrates the widespread concern that Americans have about the reckless spending behavior of elected officials who are out of touch with concerns of their constituents.
PreserveOurFuture.org is a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy group based in Russellville, Arkansas, and funded by individuals across the political spectrum. In launching the new non-profit, Manns said, "PreserveOurFuture.org has one simple goal – to make it more difficult to create permanent entitlement programs that cost trillions of dollars we don't have and can't afford. In short, enacting super programs should require a super-majority."
The nationwide poll was conducted by the Tarrance Group from September 12-14, 2010. The margin of error is 3.5% and the sample size was 800 likely voters.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Republicans Most Skeptical of Obama's Christianity after Viewing Graham's Comments
/PRNewswire/ -- Results of a new national study among 1,003 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that Republicans reported being the most skeptical of President Obama's religious affiliation after viewing a video of Franklin Graham's comments regarding his religious practices.
The study was conducted during August 23 -24 by HCD Research using its MediaCurves.com® website to obtain Americans' perceptions of President Obama's religion and the influence that his religious beliefs may have on his decision-making. To view detailed results go to: www.mediacurves.com.
Among political parties, 43% of Republicans reported that Obama was of Muslim faith compared to 13% of Democrats and 22% of Independents.
Among the findings:
Which religion do you think Barack Obama practices?
While viewing the video, participants indicated their perceived levels of agreement by moving their mouse from left to right on a continuum. The responses were recorded in quarter-second intervals and reported in the form of curves. The participants were also asked to respond to post-viewing questions.
The study was conducted during August 23 -24 by HCD Research using its MediaCurves.com® website to obtain Americans' perceptions of President Obama's religion and the influence that his religious beliefs may have on his decision-making. To view detailed results go to: www.mediacurves.com.
Among political parties, 43% of Republicans reported that Obama was of Muslim faith compared to 13% of Democrats and 22% of Independents.
Among the findings:
Which religion do you think Barack Obama practices?
Democrats Republicans Independent
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Islam 13% 13% 45% 43% 24% 22%
Christianity 76% 81% 32% 34% 58% 62%
Judaism 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 2%
Buddhism 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 0%
Hinduism 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 0%
Other 7% 4% 18% 12% 13% 16%While viewing the video, participants indicated their perceived levels of agreement by moving their mouse from left to right on a continuum. The responses were recorded in quarter-second intervals and reported in the form of curves. The participants were also asked to respond to post-viewing questions.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
New Pew Research Center Survey Reveals Growing Number of Americans Who Say Barack Obama is a Muslim
/PRNewswire/ -- A new national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that a substantial and growing number of Americans say that Barack Obama is a Muslim, while the proportion saying he is a Christian has declined. More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows.
According to the survey, nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim -- an increase from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, a sharp decrease from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama's recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center.
The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).
The new poll, conducted between July 21 and Aug. 5 among 3,003 respondents, also examines the link between Americans' perception of Obama's religion and their opinion of his job performance, and covers views on the President's approach to religion, including the influence of his religious beliefs on policy decisions. In addition, the survey explores Americans' attitudes toward churches' involvement in politics and religion's influence on American life and government, and looks at religion's impact on voting preferences for the upcoming 2010 congressional races.
The report, including a summary and topline questionnaire, will be accessible on the Forum's new Web feature, "Religion & Politics 2010," which provides a variety of election resources, including:
-- Poll analyses and survey reports on topics related to the midterm
elections
-- Links to news stories about religion-related issues impacting 2010
congressional and gubernatorial races around the country
-- "Election news briefs" highlighting interesting articles and common
themes making news headlines
The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life conducts surveys, demographic analyses and other social science research on important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. As part of the Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization, the Pew Forum does not take positions on any of the issues it covers or on policy debates.
According to the survey, nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim -- an increase from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, a sharp decrease from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama's recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center.
The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).
The new poll, conducted between July 21 and Aug. 5 among 3,003 respondents, also examines the link between Americans' perception of Obama's religion and their opinion of his job performance, and covers views on the President's approach to religion, including the influence of his religious beliefs on policy decisions. In addition, the survey explores Americans' attitudes toward churches' involvement in politics and religion's influence on American life and government, and looks at religion's impact on voting preferences for the upcoming 2010 congressional races.
The report, including a summary and topline questionnaire, will be accessible on the Forum's new Web feature, "Religion & Politics 2010," which provides a variety of election resources, including:
-- Poll analyses and survey reports on topics related to the midterm
elections
-- Links to news stories about religion-related issues impacting 2010
congressional and gubernatorial races around the country
-- "Election news briefs" highlighting interesting articles and common
themes making news headlines
The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life conducts surveys, demographic analyses and other social science research on important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. As part of the Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization, the Pew Forum does not take positions on any of the issues it covers or on policy debates.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
D.C. Leaders Believe in Practical Solutions to the Deficit and National Debt, but Doubt They're Politically Possible
/PRNewswire/ -- The "movers and shakers" in Washington are worried about the national debt and believe there are practical solutions for it, but they're just as convinced that partisan politics will block any progress, according to a new survey by Public Agenda, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization.
The research, conducted for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Choosing Our Fiscal Future initiative, examined how "beltway influencers," those who set the debate and make the decisions in Washington, view the problem. The more than 300 influencers surveyed broke down into two groups:
-- "Leaders" included high-level federal government staffers in the
executive and legislative branches, as well as media, nonprofit and
interest group executives who are key players in crafting and
implementing policies.
-- "Opinion elites" included politically active citizens in the
Washington metro area. This group may not be formally part of the
government, but they are educated, affluent and regularly participate
in civic activism. They're not decision makers, but they do provide
the context in which decision makers operate.
In light of the national debt gaining more attention, with a presidential commission set to make recommendations this December, strong majorities of both leaders (85 percent) and elites (86 percent) believe the rising national debt is a real threat and agree with the statement that "if we do not get the national debt under control, it will overwhelm the federal budget and damage the economy in the long run." But it's not their top priority - only 13 percent of leaders and 9 percent of elites cited the national debt or deficit as the country's most important problem, falling behind the economy (35 percent of leaders and 37 percent of elites) and jobs (19 percent of leaders and 11 percent of elites). A sizeable minority of both groups also worry policymakers are too focused on the issue right now.
Roughly 8 in 10 of the "beltway influencers" surveyed (78 percent of leaders and 83 percent of elites) say there "are at least several practical policy approaches to meet the country's needs without causing the debt to rise." Just as many believe that "there is no realistic way to address the rising national debt by solely cutting spending or solely raising taxes - both cutting spending and raising taxes are required to reduce the debt" (81 percent of leaders and 76 percent of elites say this).
Yet, "Beltway influencers" are highly skeptical that the political system is capable of addressing this issue. Some 78 percent of leaders and 85 percent of elites and say that pragmatic solutions will be impossible to achieve because of partisan politics. And 99 percent of leaders and 98 percent of elites say that relations in Congress have been a period of partisan conflict, up 15 percentage points since the question was last asked in the summer of 2009.
"The Washington influencers take the nation's financial problems seriously, and they think solutions exist," said Scott Bittle, executive vice president and director of public issue analysis at Public Agenda. "But they're doubtful that the political system can act on this issue - and since this group is part of the political system, that's a troubling perspective."
The survey was conducted by Harris Interactive for Public Agenda between Feb. 10 and March 9, 2010. Full results are available at www.publicagenda.org.
About the survey
The survey was fielded by Harris Interactive® from February 10 and March 9, 2010. Participants included a total of 303 Beltway influencers, comprised of 150 D.C. opinion elites and 153 D.C. leaders including 50 government (congressional staffers and executive branch), 46 media employees and 57 thought leaders from NGOs, interest groups, foundations and associations. The D.C. opinion elite surveys were conducted online and figures were weighted on age, sex, education, race, household income and education where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the D.C. opinion elite population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for the D.C. opinion elite respondents' propensity to be online. Leadership interviews were conducted via telephone and were not weighted.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The research, conducted for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Choosing Our Fiscal Future initiative, examined how "beltway influencers," those who set the debate and make the decisions in Washington, view the problem. The more than 300 influencers surveyed broke down into two groups:
-- "Leaders" included high-level federal government staffers in the
executive and legislative branches, as well as media, nonprofit and
interest group executives who are key players in crafting and
implementing policies.
-- "Opinion elites" included politically active citizens in the
Washington metro area. This group may not be formally part of the
government, but they are educated, affluent and regularly participate
in civic activism. They're not decision makers, but they do provide
the context in which decision makers operate.
In light of the national debt gaining more attention, with a presidential commission set to make recommendations this December, strong majorities of both leaders (85 percent) and elites (86 percent) believe the rising national debt is a real threat and agree with the statement that "if we do not get the national debt under control, it will overwhelm the federal budget and damage the economy in the long run." But it's not their top priority - only 13 percent of leaders and 9 percent of elites cited the national debt or deficit as the country's most important problem, falling behind the economy (35 percent of leaders and 37 percent of elites) and jobs (19 percent of leaders and 11 percent of elites). A sizeable minority of both groups also worry policymakers are too focused on the issue right now.
Roughly 8 in 10 of the "beltway influencers" surveyed (78 percent of leaders and 83 percent of elites) say there "are at least several practical policy approaches to meet the country's needs without causing the debt to rise." Just as many believe that "there is no realistic way to address the rising national debt by solely cutting spending or solely raising taxes - both cutting spending and raising taxes are required to reduce the debt" (81 percent of leaders and 76 percent of elites say this).
Yet, "Beltway influencers" are highly skeptical that the political system is capable of addressing this issue. Some 78 percent of leaders and 85 percent of elites and say that pragmatic solutions will be impossible to achieve because of partisan politics. And 99 percent of leaders and 98 percent of elites say that relations in Congress have been a period of partisan conflict, up 15 percentage points since the question was last asked in the summer of 2009.
"The Washington influencers take the nation's financial problems seriously, and they think solutions exist," said Scott Bittle, executive vice president and director of public issue analysis at Public Agenda. "But they're doubtful that the political system can act on this issue - and since this group is part of the political system, that's a troubling perspective."
The survey was conducted by Harris Interactive for Public Agenda between Feb. 10 and March 9, 2010. Full results are available at www.publicagenda.org.
About the survey
The survey was fielded by Harris Interactive® from February 10 and March 9, 2010. Participants included a total of 303 Beltway influencers, comprised of 150 D.C. opinion elites and 153 D.C. leaders including 50 government (congressional staffers and executive branch), 46 media employees and 57 thought leaders from NGOs, interest groups, foundations and associations. The D.C. opinion elite surveys were conducted online and figures were weighted on age, sex, education, race, household income and education where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the D.C. opinion elite population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for the D.C. opinion elite respondents' propensity to be online. Leadership interviews were conducted via telephone and were not weighted.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Most Americans Support Holding Wall Street and Corporate Wrongdoers More Accountable to Investors by Bolstering Investors' Legal Rights
Most Americans Support Holding Wall Street and Corporate Wrongdoers More Accountable to Investors by Bolstering Investors' Legal Rights, an Opinion Research Corporation Survey Finds
/PRNewswire/ -- Sixty-two percent of Americans believe Wall Street executives were not honest with the public during the recent financial meltdown and 59 percent of Americans do not believe corporate CEOs and financial officers provide accurate information in financial statements. And, most Americans favor additional legal rights for investors that would allow them to seek compensation for loss from any deceptive conduct by Wall Street or corporate officers -- even if it did not involve a public misstatement.
These are among the findings of a national Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) survey of public attitudes toward financial fraud and investor protection. The telephone survey, conducted December 10-13, and sponsored by the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), also found that nearly all Americans feel that those who commit fraud should be held accountable to investors who lose money as a result of the fraudulent behavior. Similarly, nearly all Americans think that those who engage in fraud but do not admit it publicly should still be held accountable to investors.
"The survey findings reveal that the public is very aware that financial and corporate officers have been engaged in conduct that is not just reckless, but that has been deceptive and dishonest before and during the financial meltdown," explained Ira Schochet, Esq., NASCAT's president. "Americans understand that Congress and the Administration must substantially increase accountability in our financial markets in order to protect investors and reduce the likelihood of another systemic crisis."
As reported by Opinion Research Corporation, some of the key findings are explained below:
-- ORC explained to survey respondents that the law allows investors to seek compensation from executives who knowingly make misrepresentations to the public. They were then asked if there was a need for additional legal rights that allow investors to sue for compensation from executives who knowingly engage in any form of deceptive conduct, even if it does not involve a public misstatement. Three-fourths (74%) agree that investors should have these additional rights. One-in-five (21%) do not.
-- Practically every respondent (94%) feels that those who commit fraud should be held accountable to investors who lose money as a result of those fraudulent actions. Only 5% do not think they should be held accountable.
-- Support is also strong for keeping executives accountable to investors when they perpetrate financial fraud even if they do not publicly admit their wrongdoing. Nine-in-ten (90%) support this idea with only 7% saying no.
-- Ninety percent of Americans believe people who participate in financial fraud - such as knowingly engaging in a sham transaction or telling others how to prepare fake financial statements or otherwise deceive investors - should be held accountable to investors. Only 7 percent oppose, while 2 percent had no opinion.
-- And, respondents were asked about the current ability of corporate managers to avoid accountability to shareholders by limiting disclosure of a wrongdoing. When asked, only a quarter (25%) agree that this should happen while 73% disagree.
Findings Support Congressional Action on Anti-Investor Court Decisions
"These findings show overwhelming public support for Congress to restore liability to investors for those who aid and abet fraud and those who can currently escape liability by manipulating public disclosures," NASCAT's Ira Schochet continued. "Congress can accomplish these goals by rolling back two radical Supreme Court decisions (Central Bank in 1994 and Stoneridge in 2008), which eliminated private liability for aiding and abetting securities fraud; and, clarifying another Court decision (Dura in 2005), which inadvertently empowered some conservative lower courts to throw out valid investor fraud claims whenever sophisticated executives and their professional advisers disguise the impact of wrongdoing by manipulating the timing and content of news releases."
Investor Demographics and Survey Methodology
About half of American adults own stock and half do not. A typical owner is older, wealthier and better educated than someone who does not own stock. Stock owners are just as likely to have the investment as a result of an employer plan as to own it on their own without any employer involvement.
These findings are from a telephone survey conducted of 1,017 adults comprising 509 men and 508 women. Interviewing for this survey was completed during the period December 10-13, 2009. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points among the total sample. Opinion Research Corporation, based in Princeton, NJ, conducted the fieldwork.
The National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Law Attorneys is a nonprofit organization comprised of about 100 law firms representing consumers and investors - including pension funds and individuals - in cases of securities fraud and other forms of "white collar" wrongdoing and criminal activity.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/PRNewswire/ -- Sixty-two percent of Americans believe Wall Street executives were not honest with the public during the recent financial meltdown and 59 percent of Americans do not believe corporate CEOs and financial officers provide accurate information in financial statements. And, most Americans favor additional legal rights for investors that would allow them to seek compensation for loss from any deceptive conduct by Wall Street or corporate officers -- even if it did not involve a public misstatement.
These are among the findings of a national Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) survey of public attitudes toward financial fraud and investor protection. The telephone survey, conducted December 10-13, and sponsored by the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), also found that nearly all Americans feel that those who commit fraud should be held accountable to investors who lose money as a result of the fraudulent behavior. Similarly, nearly all Americans think that those who engage in fraud but do not admit it publicly should still be held accountable to investors.
"The survey findings reveal that the public is very aware that financial and corporate officers have been engaged in conduct that is not just reckless, but that has been deceptive and dishonest before and during the financial meltdown," explained Ira Schochet, Esq., NASCAT's president. "Americans understand that Congress and the Administration must substantially increase accountability in our financial markets in order to protect investors and reduce the likelihood of another systemic crisis."
As reported by Opinion Research Corporation, some of the key findings are explained below:
-- ORC explained to survey respondents that the law allows investors to seek compensation from executives who knowingly make misrepresentations to the public. They were then asked if there was a need for additional legal rights that allow investors to sue for compensation from executives who knowingly engage in any form of deceptive conduct, even if it does not involve a public misstatement. Three-fourths (74%) agree that investors should have these additional rights. One-in-five (21%) do not.
-- Practically every respondent (94%) feels that those who commit fraud should be held accountable to investors who lose money as a result of those fraudulent actions. Only 5% do not think they should be held accountable.
-- Support is also strong for keeping executives accountable to investors when they perpetrate financial fraud even if they do not publicly admit their wrongdoing. Nine-in-ten (90%) support this idea with only 7% saying no.
-- Ninety percent of Americans believe people who participate in financial fraud - such as knowingly engaging in a sham transaction or telling others how to prepare fake financial statements or otherwise deceive investors - should be held accountable to investors. Only 7 percent oppose, while 2 percent had no opinion.
-- And, respondents were asked about the current ability of corporate managers to avoid accountability to shareholders by limiting disclosure of a wrongdoing. When asked, only a quarter (25%) agree that this should happen while 73% disagree.
Findings Support Congressional Action on Anti-Investor Court Decisions
"These findings show overwhelming public support for Congress to restore liability to investors for those who aid and abet fraud and those who can currently escape liability by manipulating public disclosures," NASCAT's Ira Schochet continued. "Congress can accomplish these goals by rolling back two radical Supreme Court decisions (Central Bank in 1994 and Stoneridge in 2008), which eliminated private liability for aiding and abetting securities fraud; and, clarifying another Court decision (Dura in 2005), which inadvertently empowered some conservative lower courts to throw out valid investor fraud claims whenever sophisticated executives and their professional advisers disguise the impact of wrongdoing by manipulating the timing and content of news releases."
Investor Demographics and Survey Methodology
About half of American adults own stock and half do not. A typical owner is older, wealthier and better educated than someone who does not own stock. Stock owners are just as likely to have the investment as a result of an employer plan as to own it on their own without any employer involvement.
These findings are from a telephone survey conducted of 1,017 adults comprising 509 men and 508 women. Interviewing for this survey was completed during the period December 10-13, 2009. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points among the total sample. Opinion Research Corporation, based in Princeton, NJ, conducted the fieldwork.
The National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Law Attorneys is a nonprofit organization comprised of about 100 law firms representing consumers and investors - including pension funds and individuals - in cases of securities fraud and other forms of "white collar" wrongdoing and criminal activity.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Americans Favor Carbon Tax Over Cap and Trade, Two-To-One
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, the U.S. Climate Task Force (CTF) and Future 500 released the results of a new survey by Hart Research, which reveals that three out of four Americans favor legislation to significantly cut carbon emissions -- contradicting reports that public support had cooled. Moreover, "Energy And Climate Change Policy: A Survey among American Voters" shows that U.S. voters favor a carbon tax over cap and trade by nearly two-to-one. These findings suggest it's politically feasible for the U.S. Congress to pass a national emissions policy; lawmakers just need to pick the right one.
The survey, which polled over 1,000 registered voters across the country, found a carbon tax outperforms emissions trading systems across the electorate, including voters in every income bracket, each region of the country, and on both sides of the political aisle. Moreover, those who give higher priority to climate issues are even less likely to support cap and trade as the best solution.
"This poll reveals that only two percent of voters hold very positive view of cap and trade -- the system at the core of the current Senate bill," explains Dr. Elaine Kamarck, former senior policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore and current CTF Co-chair. "But it's not too late to salvage the situation. With both the U.N. and the Senate delaying major climate debates until next year, policymakers now have time to make a serious course correction in the emissions debate. And this survey offers Congress -- especially those looking ahead to the 2010 midterm elections -- the necessary guideposts for success."
CTF Chair Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce and senior advisor to Bill Clinton notes, "Support for a carbon tax-shift has been strong among economists and many environmentalists for a long time, because it sets a stable price for carbon, providing businesses and households the incentives they need to develop and adopt climate friendly fuels and technologies. It also provides accompanying tax cuts for American families. This new survey shows that the same attributes that make this policy appealing to these groups also make it the most popular option for two out of every three average Americans."
"By more than two-to-one, Americans want strong action to protect the climate, and they favor using the tax system to help achieve that," says Bill Shireman, President of Future 500. "We applaud the tremendous progress made to advance climate legislation in the past year. To actually enact required changes into law, Congress will need to improve on the current Boxer-Kerry model, to best meet the climate crisis and unite environmental, business, social justice, and taxpayer interests."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The survey, which polled over 1,000 registered voters across the country, found a carbon tax outperforms emissions trading systems across the electorate, including voters in every income bracket, each region of the country, and on both sides of the political aisle. Moreover, those who give higher priority to climate issues are even less likely to support cap and trade as the best solution.
"This poll reveals that only two percent of voters hold very positive view of cap and trade -- the system at the core of the current Senate bill," explains Dr. Elaine Kamarck, former senior policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore and current CTF Co-chair. "But it's not too late to salvage the situation. With both the U.N. and the Senate delaying major climate debates until next year, policymakers now have time to make a serious course correction in the emissions debate. And this survey offers Congress -- especially those looking ahead to the 2010 midterm elections -- the necessary guideposts for success."
CTF Chair Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce and senior advisor to Bill Clinton notes, "Support for a carbon tax-shift has been strong among economists and many environmentalists for a long time, because it sets a stable price for carbon, providing businesses and households the incentives they need to develop and adopt climate friendly fuels and technologies. It also provides accompanying tax cuts for American families. This new survey shows that the same attributes that make this policy appealing to these groups also make it the most popular option for two out of every three average Americans."
"By more than two-to-one, Americans want strong action to protect the climate, and they favor using the tax system to help achieve that," says Bill Shireman, President of Future 500. "We applaud the tremendous progress made to advance climate legislation in the past year. To actually enact required changes into law, Congress will need to improve on the current Boxer-Kerry model, to best meet the climate crisis and unite environmental, business, social justice, and taxpayer interests."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, October 5, 2009
President Obama Mistakenly Invites OPPONENT To Stand Up for Him at White House Today: AAPS Doctors Ask, Is He Having Trouble Finding Supporters?
/PRNewswire/ -- One of the doctors who will NOT be standing behind the President today is one of his most vocal opponents. But he would have been there if the White House had its way.
Dr. Eric Novack was one of the 50 doctors invited to the White House photo op today. But he turned down the invitation, because he has lead the fight to pass state legislation and constitutional amendments to prohibit individual insurance mandates.
"They had 16 hours to Google me, but I guess no one bothered," Dr. Novack told Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in a video interview available at www.TakeBackMedicine.com.
Dr. Novack says that it was very tempting to accept the "once-in-a-lifetime" invitation, but in the end, he had to say no. But it also makes him question whether the doctors who will be there today actually support the President, or even understand all of the details of the bills.
"Are these doctors just star-struck, or do they have real knowledge about what they are supporting?" asked Serkes. "It's looking like another dog-and-pony-show, and doctors should not be used in this shameful manner. First the President vilifies them, now he wants their help."
AAPS SURVEYS REBUT WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS
Serkes also rebuts the White House claims that doctors overwhelmingly support the public plan. A recent poll on the AAPS web site, www.TakeBackMedicine.com shows that 93% of the doctors polled are even more adamantly against the President's plans after his national address to Congress and the country on Sept. 9.
Further, pre-publication results of an AAPS survey show that about 80% of doctors would refuse to VOLUNTARILY take part in a public plan.
So what will Dr. Novack be doing on Monday instead of standing behind the President? "I'll be taking care of patients -- because that's what it's all about."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Dr. Eric Novack was one of the 50 doctors invited to the White House photo op today. But he turned down the invitation, because he has lead the fight to pass state legislation and constitutional amendments to prohibit individual insurance mandates.
"They had 16 hours to Google me, but I guess no one bothered," Dr. Novack told Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in a video interview available at www.TakeBackMedicine.com.
Dr. Novack says that it was very tempting to accept the "once-in-a-lifetime" invitation, but in the end, he had to say no. But it also makes him question whether the doctors who will be there today actually support the President, or even understand all of the details of the bills.
"Are these doctors just star-struck, or do they have real knowledge about what they are supporting?" asked Serkes. "It's looking like another dog-and-pony-show, and doctors should not be used in this shameful manner. First the President vilifies them, now he wants their help."
AAPS SURVEYS REBUT WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS
Serkes also rebuts the White House claims that doctors overwhelmingly support the public plan. A recent poll on the AAPS web site, www.TakeBackMedicine.com shows that 93% of the doctors polled are even more adamantly against the President's plans after his national address to Congress and the country on Sept. 9.
Further, pre-publication results of an AAPS survey show that about 80% of doctors would refuse to VOLUNTARILY take part in a public plan.
So what will Dr. Novack be doing on Monday instead of standing behind the President? "I'll be taking care of patients -- because that's what it's all about."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, August 10, 2009
New Poll Shows Two-Thirds of Americans Don't Think Government Health Care Will Cut Costs
/PRNewswire/ -- Despite President Obama's efforts to position government-funded health care as a "cost-cutter" for all taxpayers, two-thirds of Americans think there are more effective ways to reduce health care costs, according to a national survey question released today by message research firm M4 Strategies.
The majority of respondents believe national tort reform laws to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals will be the most effective way to lower health care costs.
In a poll of 1,001 U.S. residents conducted from July 24-27, when asked which would likely have a greater impact in reducing Americans' health care costs, 45 percent opined national tort reform would be most effective and 16 percent stated they did not know. Only 40 percent were willing to say free health insurance for the poor would have the most impact. The survey has a 3.1% margin of error.
When thinking about health care costs in the future, which do you think will have a greater impact in reducing health care costs for Americans?
Frequency Percent
--------- -------
National lawsuit reform that reduces
frivolous lawsuits against doctors
and hospitals. 446 44.6
------------------------------------ --- ----
A government program that provides
health insurance to those who cannot
afford it. 397 39.7
------------------------------------- --- ----
Not sure/Don't know 158 15.8
------------------------------------- --- ----
"It's clear that Americans aren't buying Obama's claim that his health care plan will reduce long term health care costs," said Chris St. Hilaire, President of M4 Strategies. "More people also believe that tort reform, which Obama opposes, is a better way to cut costs than what he's proposing."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The majority of respondents believe national tort reform laws to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals will be the most effective way to lower health care costs.
In a poll of 1,001 U.S. residents conducted from July 24-27, when asked which would likely have a greater impact in reducing Americans' health care costs, 45 percent opined national tort reform would be most effective and 16 percent stated they did not know. Only 40 percent were willing to say free health insurance for the poor would have the most impact. The survey has a 3.1% margin of error.
When thinking about health care costs in the future, which do you think will have a greater impact in reducing health care costs for Americans?
Frequency Percent
--------- -------
National lawsuit reform that reduces
frivolous lawsuits against doctors
and hospitals. 446 44.6
------------------------------------ --- ----
A government program that provides
health insurance to those who cannot
afford it. 397 39.7
------------------------------------- --- ----
Not sure/Don't know 158 15.8
------------------------------------- --- ----
"It's clear that Americans aren't buying Obama's claim that his health care plan will reduce long term health care costs," said Chris St. Hilaire, President of M4 Strategies. "More people also believe that tort reform, which Obama opposes, is a better way to cut costs than what he's proposing."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)