Showing posts with label background checks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label background checks. Show all posts

Monday, February 11, 2019

Recent polls are flashing warnings for both parties

A version of this was published in the on line version of the Sky Hi News: https://www.skyhinews.com/news/opinion-muftic-recent-polls-are-flashing-warnings-for-both-parties/

 I have been following public opinion polls closely it seems forever. It is a habit I picked up during years of being active in politics, doing polling myself, and hiring pollsters. The value of nationwide polls is not predicting who or what will win on election day; we have seen too many misfires when elections are close. The voting registered through the Electoral College often distorts the nationwide popular vote outcome. State by state polls have more meaning then.  The highest value of national polls is helping political strategists keep a grip on reality even in a closely divided nation where there still can be lopsided results on public policy issues. Democrats and Republicans should consider them flashing caution lights and ignore them at their own peril.

 Analyzing polls can be tricky. How many, when, who were asked, and how important were ranked issues to voters, are critical elements in interpreting polls. Ask yourself if 80% of Republicans support Donald Trump, why is it he had been polling around 40%-43% nationally per multi polls reported by conservative leaning Real Clear Politics, February 6.  It is math. There are more Democrats than Republicans. In 2018, Gallup found 40% identified as Democrats, 29% as Republicans and 28% as independents. For example, Donald Trump’s State of the Union address polled 76% approval, but CNN found only those who watched it were polled and they were 17% more Republican, warping the results a bit. Nonetheless, Trump nearly a week later showed a significant bump in job approval over prior national polls. How permanent that bump will be may be short lived if he shuts down the government again or calls for a national emergency.  Right now, the country is more closely divided on the president than it was just before his State of the Union address.

Per Gallup, in the 2018 midterms, healthcare, the economy and immigration topped the list of public policy issues.” Other issues that at least seven in 10 voters rate as ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important include the treatment of women in U.S. society, gun policy and taxes. The investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election and climate change rank at the bottom, although roughly half still considered them important”.

 For every public policy issue that has widespread support it seems there will always be at least 30% of the voters who disagree.   It is rare if approval of anything exceeds 65 to 70% but polls registering 65% or higher are as near to a national consensus as we can get. To reach that figure, parts of more than one demographic, party affiliation, or geographic location must agree.  

 I set out to find any publicly released polls that registered approval/disapproval of opinions on issues and politicians in at least the 65- 70% range I did.  Caution lights for the GOP:  90% favor background checks on guns (Politifact) and taxing the ultra-rich scored 76% approval. (reported Fortune and News Max).  Nonpartisan, nonprofit Pew Research found 70% against overturning Roe v Wade. Building the wall was not as decisive, but mid fifty percent polled opposed it.   reported by The Hill, and over 69% did not think it was a priority, per a Fortune magazine report. Whether the president should declare a national emergency to build it, a CBS poll found 66% disapproval.

 There is clearly a flashing yellow caution light for Democrats trying to craft their platform on health care insurance.  While polls show Medicare for All has had 70% approval, (The Hill) a Kaiser Foundation poll found if it means eliminating private insurance (single payer), approval crashed to 10%. However, only 14% want the current system and they found degrees of support for Medicare with private supplements, and choice between public and private plans.











  
  

  


Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Colorado's approach to keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill

While the nation, the White House, and Congress are coming to grips with proposals to curb the carnage of mass shootings, there is one sub issue with a meeting of minds: mental health and how to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

There are two thrusts: One, to improve the reporting to data banks of those deemed by the courts to be a danger to themselves and those around them, and the other is to give greater access to mental health services. None of these alone is a silver bullet, but together they will help save lives and reduce the frequency of such gun violence.

Thanks to the horrors of Columbine and the Aurora Movie Theater tragedies, Colorado has become an icon for mass shootings. Our state is also leading the way in seeking solutions. Gov. John Hickenlooper made some key proposals in December and in his State of the State address. Obamacare, which will be fully implemented in 2014, will also make access for all to some affordable mental health services a reality.

We thought we were safer than we are. We thought courts that ruled someone a mental health danger reported the names to a data bank, but we learned that Colorado only updated information twice a year. We thought closing the gun show loophole in Colorado, requiring background checks before purchase, had resolved that problem. Now we learn 40 percent of the sales conducted in private are not subject to such checks.

We thought that when laws required employer-provided insurance and Medicaid to cover some mental health services, we had solved the access issue. However, we learned through the Colorado Health Institute that over 640,000 adults in Colorado were uninsured by anyone (24 percent of Grand County). And then we wondered why those who were mass shooters appearing to be mentally disturbed still committed their crimes with ever increasing frequency and death tolls.

Obamacare will help make access to mental health services affordable to all in Colorado. Those who do not have health insurance now will be able to buy insurance at rates according to their income levels in 2014. Colorado has just agreed to add 160,000 of the currently uninsured to Medicaid beginning in 2014. This means an individual earning $14,856 or a family of four earning up to $30,657 may qualify for Medicaid, which includes mental health services.

The expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare includes a series of measures designed to bring down the cost of Medicaid while improving health outcomes, according to the National Mental Health Association - Colorado. Over the next 10 years, according to the governor and the state's director of Healthcare Policy and Financing, Sue Birch, the expansion and other reforms will save Colorado taxpayers up to $280 million.

Gov. Hickenlooper has also proposed the state spend $18.5 million in the 2013 state budget to provide a crisis response hotline and walk-in crisis centers around the state, to expand jail-located mental health beds, and to provide housing and short-term residential facilities for those transitioning to the community. The proposal would align various laws for civil commitments for treatment, clarifying options for providers of mental health and substance abuse services.

In addition, reporting of mental health records sent to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation would be made in real time instead of twice a year to provide up to date background checks. In his State of the State address, the governor urged “universal background checks” for all purchases of firearms.

The question is will the legislature and the public, including 2nd Amendment advocates, put their money where their mouth is or will Hickenlooper's proposal end up in the budget cutting heap in these times of tough public finances. We should hope not.

This is my column today in the www.skyhidailynews.com

For more, visit www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com