Feingold, Johnson, and ObamaCare

Polling in Wisconsin has consistently shown that Russ Feingold most definitely did not listen to his constituents when he voted for ObamaCare.

Even as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/PolitiFact Wisconsin declares Ron Johnson's ad, "Listening," false, the analysis cites poll after poll indicating Feingold's deafness.

There's a tortured parsing of words to declare the ad false.

The reality is most Wisconsinites do not want ObamaCare. We want the monstrosity, the government takeover of our health care, putting medical decisions in the government's hands, repealed.

But Craig Gilbert of the Journal Sentinel does his best to say that Feingold really did listen to Wisconsinites. We're just too stupid to realize it.

What about individual elements of the law?

We have virtually no current data from public polls in Wisconsin on this. But national polls do suggest some pieces of the health care law enjoy more support than opposition.

The AP poll cited above asked:

“Do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose a law requiring insurance companies to sell health insurance to a person who is currently sick or has had a serious illness in the past, which would probably cause most Americans to pay more for health insurance?”

The results: 44% favored and 19% opposed, with the rest neutral.

The AP poll also asked:

“Do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose a law saying that an insurance company cannot stop selling health insurance to one of their customers if that person gets a serious illness?”

The results: 73% favored and 9% opposed.

Under the new law, insurance companies now have to cover children regardless of health problems. It’s provisions like these that Feingold’s new ad refers to.

Republicans believe Feingold is defying public opinion and digging himself into a deeper political hole by advertising his support for new health care reforms. Some liberals make the opposite argument that it’s good politics, not bad, to single out elements of the law that are popular and go after Republicans for wanting to repeal them. The polling data offer fodder for both views and is further muddled by public confusion over the law, confusion that the Kaiser poll says is increasing, not decreasing.

“There’s been next to nobody (on the Democratic side) out there bringing this up and trying to turn a negative into a positive,” says Tracey, who tracks the ad wars and thinks Democrats like Feingold don’t have much to lose by taking the tack he is taking.

“What I don’t understand is why more aren’t at least recasting or defending it. It’s not like they’re going to be allowed to deny their vote,” Tracey says.

Is Gilbert getting paid by the Feingold campaign or the DNC, or is he doing his campaign work pro bono?

Gilbert latches on to responses to questions that he believes proves we really do want ObamaCare.

That's an embarrassingly illogical leap. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose.

There is plenty of data showing that on ObamaCare Feingold is not listening to us.

In fact, Feingold mocks his constituents when chatting with Jeff "Enchanted" Zeleny of the New York Times.

The overwhelming majority of polls taken on our views of ObamaCare show Feingold ignores us and belittles us.

He represents the extremists on the Left, not Wisconsin.
__________________

Watch Feingold's new ad on health care:



"Ron Johnson, hands off my health care"?

What?

Translation: "Russ Feingold, Obama, and big government bureaucracy, hands on my health care."

I, like most of my fellow Wisconsinites say, NO THANKS.

LISTEN, RUSS!
_________________

Feingold's vote for ObamaCare was a vote for SWEETHEART DEALS.

Russ Feingold is a hypocrite.

He rails against corruption and then he votes for it.

From the Republican Party of Wisconsin:

MADISON – Russ Feingold’s support for “sweetheart deals” can’t get any more clear: Feingold voted to table an amendment yesterday that would have explicitly eliminated “sweetheart deals” in the health care bill –including sweetheart deals for Hawaii, Louisiana, Connecticut, and Michigan.

“Russ is sending valentines to states like Michigan instead of representing the wishes of Wisconsin residents,” said Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. “On November 2, Russ’s candy heart from Wisconsin voters will read ‘No Thanks.’”

Pathetic.

SEC. 1502. ELIMINATION OF SWEETHEART DEALS.

(a) Repeals.--Effective as if included in the enactment of

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the following

provisions are repealed:

(1) Sweetheart deal to provide Tennessee with Medicaid dsh

funds.--Clause (v) of section 1923(f)(6)(A) of the Social

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f)(6)(A)), as added by

section 1203(b) of this Act.

(2) Sweetheart deal to provide Hawaii with Medicaid dsh

funds.--Clause (iii) of section 1923(f)(6)(B) of the Social

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f)(6)(B)), as added by

section 10201(e)(1)(A) of the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act.

(3) Sweetheart deal to provide Louisiana with a special

increased Medicaid fmap.--Subsection (aa) of section 1905 of

the Social Security Act, as added by section 2006 of the

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

(4) Sweetheart deal that increases Medicare reimbursement

just for frontier states.--Section 10324 of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amendments made

by such section).

(5) Sweetheart deal granting Medicare coverage for

individuals exposed to environmental hazards in Libby,

Montana.--Section 10323 of the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act (and the amendments made by such

section).

(6) Sweetheart deal for a hospital in Connecticut.--Section

10502 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

(b) Elimination of Sweetheart Deal That Reclassifies

Hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut to Increase Their

Medicare Reimbursement.--Section 3137(a) of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by section

10317 of such Act, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (2)--

(A) by striking ``fiscal year 2010'' and all that follows

through ``for purposes of implementation of the amendment''

and inserting ``fiscal year 2010.--For purposes of

implementation of the amendment''; and

(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and

(2) by striking paragraph (3).

We need to vote the hypocrite Feingold out.