Truly baffling Times/CBS poll result

[Proud Public Servant]

So, I was just digging down into the data in the Times/CBS poll that came out this week (the one that showed how unpopular our efforts in Afghanistan are), and I came across this nugget:

13. Do you approve or disapprove of a provision in the 2010 health care law that allows
children to stay on their parents' health insurance policies until the age of 26?
Approve - 68%
Disapprove - 28%
DK/NA - 4%

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/328334/nyt-cbs-poll.pdf (see p. 4)

WTF? Who are these 28% who disapprove of this? How can anyone disapprove of this? Seriously, 28% of Americans think that young people should either have no insurance or be saddled with ruinous insurance premiums when their earning potential is at its lowest, rather than allowing their parents to choose -- choose, not be compelled -- to assist them? I can understand the opposing side in almost every aspect of the health care debate -- I even understand those 12% who disapprove of the provision that requires coverage of pre-existing medical condition (I figure they're Randian absolutists) -- but seriously, who the hell disapproves of letting parents continue to provide for their children? And 2 in 7 Americans think that? Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

[ananda]

1. Hmm

I think that the majority of people in the country actually want good and fair social programs.

However, the media and the rightwing don't want us to know or think this. Everything published
and aired has a strong rightwing slant and spin.

[Ian David]

2. It could be the wording.

Do you approve or disapprove of a provision in the 2010 health care law that allows
children to stay on their parents' health insurance policies until the age of 26?

Instead of...

Do you approve or disapprove of a provision in the 2010 health care law that allows
parents to keep their children on their health insurance policies until the age of 26?

See the difference?

One implies the children are allowed to freeload off their parents.

The second one implies it gives the parents a choice as to whether or not they want to care for their children.

[Scuba]

5. +1 Most polls are designed to influence opinion, not measure it.

[Proud Public Servant]

7. Could be, I suppose [n/t]

[gateley]

3. It could just be the 28% that doesn't want the government to enforce ANY requirements,

just on general principles?

[nobodyspecial]

8. It's not a requirement

Just an option to allow the parents to buy.

On edit: The child also give the parent the money for the added cost if no other option is available, so the family can decide how to handle it. Many young workers don't have access to health care. They are also the most profitable, which helps cover the payouts for older workers.

[Proud Public Servant]

9. The argument against that

is that only 12% disapprove of the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, which actually strikes me as more controversial.

[cleanhippie]

4. You are seeing that there is ~30% of the population that care only for themselves.

[democrat_patriot]

6. All they heard was "Do you approve of Obamacare?"

And they answered as Rush has instructed them to.

[BlueToTheBone]

10. They are the same 28% who hate all things social

and all people not like them; commonly known as TeaBaggers.

[lib_wit_it]

11. Ayn Rand groupies and Teabaggers. No surprise there.

[Renew Deal]

12. There are people that don't want to pay. People that don't like their kids.

People that think 20 somethings are too coddled and should be out on their own. And people that hate Obama so much, they'll vote against their interests.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. It's the 27% Crazification Factor

There are approximately 27% of Americans who are so far right they cannot be reasoned with. Possibly first identified at that level in 2005:

John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --

Tyrone: 27%.

John: ... you said that immmediately, and with some authority.

Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.

John: Objectively crazy or crazy vis-a-vis my own inertial reference frame for rational behaviour? I mean, are you creating the Theory of Special Crazification or General Crazification?

Tyrone: Hadn't thought about it. Let's split the difference. Half just have worldviews which lead them to disagree with what you consider rationality even though they arrive at their positions through rational means, and the other half are the core of the Crazification -- either genuinely crazy; or so woefully misinformed about how the world works, the bases for their decision making is so flawed they may as well be crazy.

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.co.uk/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html

And how right he was: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

You can often find examples, even from 1964: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/02/12/goldwater-romney-and-the-27/

[Proud Public Servant]

14. Great explanation...and great read! [nt]

[Baitball Blogger]

15. I've met some Republican types who have made it big and today call themselves conservatives.

They live near the beach in California while they have property sitting in New York City. They forward emails decrying how many people are on the government payroll, and their relationship with their children and other relatives really stinks.

The thing is, they don't know how much they're detested, even by the other Republican relatives. And I'm guessing they also don't think they're doing anything wrong by cutting off their own children financially and saying, "I want to spend it all before I die and leave nothing to anybody."

And spend it they try to do. Their guest bedrooms have a world map where they've been to around the world and the pins are so thick that in some places all you can see is blue for the ocean water.

So the 28% are people like this, or people who don't have the money, but feel the same way. "I want to spend it all before I die and leave nothing to anybody."

[Proud Public Servant]

16. As a parent

I just can't fathom that. But I suppose you're right.

[Baitball Blogger]

17. I can't fathom it either.

I think this is where the resentment begins. Kids who have had to put themselves through college because of asshole parents that have the money but won't pay the tuition sometimes grow up resenting the world. I've told my kids, don't tell anyone that your tuition will be taken care of by your parents, just in case they come across people holding a grudge.

For me, it's always been about making sure the next generation has at least that education. They don't need cars on their sixteenth birthday and all the other flashy crap. But if you can show them that the degree is worth having if you can afford one, everything else begins to fall in place.