“Do you read the New York times?” omitted from the results.. of course..

Kind of exciting when you think about it. Too bad entities like the Times can’t be enticed by a things like a good public debate; if they were, maybe they wouldn’t be swirling the toilet bowl of financial ruin.

This is an old story from Newsbusters, but it points out that in 2008, CBS, The NY Times, and Newsweek had the most inaccurate polls, overstating Obama’s margin of victory on the eve of election night by 90-100%.

The two polling companies that were most accurate were Pew and Rasmussen, who were accurate to within a half a percentage point. Keep that in mind — today, Rasmussen keeps showing Obama with an approval rating 10 points below that of Gallup. (Gallup was in the middle range of polls for accuracy.)

Moreover, the Times endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the Dem/Repub primaries, both of whom lost. Their polling in October 2008 showed that Sarah Palin was “dragging” on McCain’s support, which made no sense considering that their own polls showed McCain being supported by 35-40% of voters prior to Palin’s emergence on the scene, and in the final vote McCain got between 46-47% of the final vote.

I have to deal with the constant perturbance of my colleagues in academia forwarding me NY Times articles (the other thing the love to forward is stuff from Salon), as if I am supposed to be wowed by the infallibility of the home of Frank Rich, David Brooks, and Bob Herbert — all under the spectacular ownership of Carlos Slim — and all this from a paper that is violating union contracts with the Boston Globe.

My response when I get a NY Times forward? I just do what S&L did above — slowly, carefully, politely review the facts. No Times piece with any implication ever survives scrutiny. Certainly this poll hasn’t.

It’s almost not even worth talking about here it’s been so obviously documented. Make this point outside of this and few other forums and you can’t argue past it. Next thing you know you have the two sides distracted on the issue and debating a false premise while the real change goes ahead.

Even the raging dems I work with don’t necessarily want to pay more taxes to pay for universal care. Perhaps it’s a difference between dems who have good health care insurance and those who don’t.

I don’t know a single Republican who thinks government has any business in health care. Period.

It always amazes me to read that people think that politicians can “fix” health care in any way shape or form. Unless that politician is a doctor or nurse there is no way that the lay person can ever understand the complexities of the human body and the decision-making process involved in every aspect of patient care. Health care is not a flow chart-deliverable process, which is of course all government understands.

If politicians are going to be making health care decisions, there is no need for health care professionals. Because those flow charts will tell them just what do to … and of course never acknowledge that a human life is at stake (I’m probably using the wrong term—I’m thinking of those flip charts used by 9-1-1 operators that explain step-by-step how to do CPR, or how to deliver a baby, or how to stop hemorrhage before medical help arrives. The operator doesn’t have that info in his or her head like a doctor or nurse—it’s in a step-by-step chart—do this, if one thing happens, do this next; if this happens, do this instead.).

Can you imagine some government schmuck making diagnoses by using that flip chart? It’s already in existence by insurance companies and worker’s comp carriers. Coming soon to a clinic near you—medicine by a government menu, administered by an Acorn volunteer!