Even if you grant Exra his apparently flawed data, the implied slogan "We're from the left and we know what's good for you" sorta leaves me cold.

Well, I don't know if it counts as gussying up, but wouldn't it be fair to consider the extent to which poll respondents understand what's actually IN the Senate bill?

Last I heard, people like those elements which are in the bill when asked about it, though I suppose that may have changed.

I'm not entirely sure about the accuracy of saying that people dislike a bill when that dislike is (allow me to make a general point here, acknowledging that I've not checked the latest polling on this specific item in detail) largely based on inaccurate understanding of the bill's contents. It might still be fair, anyway, to say that they don't like the bill...

...but it seems a dubious statement at best, if no further context is given.

One of the lovely things about the Web is the ease with which we can check references. It took real effort back in the ancient, ink-on-paper days, and I don't miss it one little bit.

lol, I basically automatically take the opposite view of whatever M.S.'s interpretation of any event is. It saves me a lot of time and has worked out pretty well so far. Thanks Economist!

The important thing to consider is that there was no large "Government can't do anything" movement in the 1960s or 70s.

Nixon, who may be the most conservative President of that era, pondered creating a "living wage" program. Dwight Eisenhower wrote a friend about those who still think government has no role to play in guiding the economy: “their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

The political climate back then was much different.

(Nixon however did come up with the political strategy that the once "negligible in number and stupid" have used to build a broader base. Play on people's social fears, while instituting economic policy that will hurt those same people.)

Good advice, but unless I am missing something the polls cited by McArdle are not the same as those cited by Klein. Klein uses polls querying general opinions about Medicare, whereas McArdle uses polls that describe the proposed system and ask if the respondents approve of what was described.

I realize this is a Democratic talking point for the current bill -- that poll numbers improve once people know what's in it. But regardless of whether you trust general poll questions or descriptive ones, you simply can't compare the results of one to the other. Currently, the media is following the general ones almost exclusively so I don't think it is at all 'incomplete' of Klein to do the same.

oh good machievelli, I was afraid we'd go an entire blog w/o someone trotting out the demeaning trope that people are too stupid and everyone would vote for the left in overwhelming numbers on economic grounds. which is of course somewhere beyond laughable into the clinically insane. not to mention the general snobbery and condescention needed to presume on what matters people are allowed to vote in the first place.

You're right forsize. We should instead opt-in to the totally not demeaning argument that we're on the precipice of total socialism, anarcy, communism and the eternal death of sliced bread if we don't vote right.

bampbs, I want to clarify my comment about you on the last post. You may not remember the conversation at all. I had a different name back then.

And of course, the major parts of the bill (even the "dreaded" public option that was excluded) are more popular in polls than the bill as a whole, pointing to a possible disconnect between what's in the bill and what people have heard is in the bill, yada yada yada....

Wait a minute, what was it about the Samuelson underlying data that caused the blog author to all of a sudden wake up from his slow, steady fall into agreeing with Samuelson's points, and to run back safely to the where its like home, with the Democrats (still unknown) proposal, like the prodigal son story??

I know why Klein screwed up, but not Samuelson. It'd be nice to know why Samuelson's wrong, especially if he's wrong in the same way that Klein is wrong (which if true is pretty bad). But of course I guess I don't really know that Klein was wrong at all, since I'm taking the word of the blog author instead of reading the primary source and doing math and stuff to figure it out. It could be a trap...

But anyway, I agree strongly: "The lesson: even in this busy modern life, don't let anyone (including us) do all your aggregating and interpreting for you. Read the primary sources yourself." 100% correct, rational, efficient, effective. A moral obligation? (To some, the answer is yes).
Though, the blog author can still state his reasons, and everyone else can still be responsible for reading primary sources from time to time. The obligations can live together. So, therefore, it would have been nice to know what's wrong with the underlying data that suggests it'll be more expensive to provide health insurance than is currently being spent on uninsureds going to the ER? And relatedly, if you think its a moral issue to expand coverage, even if on a particular point or particular data, it suggests public costs will rise, then say that.

On the raw politics point, this one could go either way, public opinion might be fickle or unmoveable, and might be either of those things for the right reasons or the wrong reasons. It's impossible to really know. (But it'll all make sense in retrospect).

That being my take on things, I agree that there's a view on raw politics that Dems should pass the bill, and that's the way to go, and that that's a legitimate, defensible view that I would defend (if I was more convinced as to the substance of the bill, and it aligned with my views as to normative things). Popularity or unpopularity really isn't enough of a basis for a decision, unless its like hugely unpopular to a point where you should realize something is wrong in your head, like 70-80% unpopular.