I would just like to post this, to see if anybody else has been hit with a push poll by the pharmacy industry in Ontario. It was quite the insideous poll and I am sure it is wide-spread to combat the proposed Ontario legislation to cut out subsidies.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
ER...post what? You didn't actually post a link.
Can you describe the sorts of questions and how it is a push poll?
Can you describe the sorts of questions and how it is a push poll?
I was in the Stuperstore pharmacy the other day, inquiring as to the efficacy of Monistat to rid one's self of a Liberal MPP, and they had all kinds of literature out concerning the subsidies and a petition for people to sign, also.
He said, "I'd like to post this to..." in the same way that you might say in a letter you're writing, "I'm writing this to..." By "this" he clearly means his post. Come on. Does every newbie have to be hazed when they venture forth?
Welcome to babble, brian.
I wasn't actually hazing him, Michelle. I thought he'd actually meant to post a link or in some other way left his first post incomplete.
I don't think he was hazed either-- in fact he was welcomed with interest in the post he made. My post was one of interest not argument and I hope he will take the time to explain since I ahve not seen the poll and am concerned about this kind of activity so I'd like to see more about it.
Welcome Brian -- this is an interesting and important issue so I hope you will elaborate as we are all hearing about the initiative and the public response but not the push poll. The use of sick people for a petition is unseemly as well.
Here's a video that explains our position:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCW00BsZ_Cs&feature=player_embedded
Here's Cheri DiNovo sticking up for us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omuEOdOj1iw&feature=player_embedded
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLONT-S09-T404.pdf
Can we get something straight here? People often bandy around the term "push poll" and usually use it incorrectly. There is a huge difference between a poll of a random sample of - say 500 or 1,000 people - that happens to have questions that you may think are biased and a "push poll". A "push poll" is something very particular. Its not actually a poll at all because in almost every case no data is actually collected. Its when a campaign (usually in the US) has a phone room call thousands of voters in a particular district and ask them a totally loaded question - not to collect data - but to get out a message that is damaging to their opponent. An example of a push poll in Canada would be if I hired a phone room to call every single person in Ontario and pretend to be conducting a poll and say "Hi, I'm so and so from Joe Blow Research. If you knew that Michael Ignatieff had been convicted of 20 counts of possession of child pornography - would you be more or less likely to vote for him?"
You see the difference? There is no actual poll, they are pretending to do a poll just in order to spread slander. That is a "push poll"
That is why I asked for the details because a push poll is a serious attempt at manipulation of opinion rather than measurement of it (even in a biased way).
I'll be meeting with some of the folks today at Queens Park, and will ask about this - no pharmacies are doing "push polls" in my neighbourhood.
I was polled recently on the pharmacy issue. The questions were fairly leading, but I would say it far more likely the poll I was involved with was a government hired poll. That is based on the types of questions and the introductions to them. Nothing outrageous but enough to tip their hand if you were paying attention or have had the benefit of reading Sean in Ottawa's excellent explanation of polling over the years.
Might be a different poll of course, but it does say that there is danger in this issue for the government, and that someone has recognized it, particularly in rural/small town Ontario were I think the issues are seen much differently due to the personal relationship we build up with these health care professionals that are a part (a very important and respected part at that) of our communities.
Met with other pharmacists on the lawn at the Ontario Legislature today. They're not doing "push polls;" some pharmacies are asking people to sign petitions against the cuts, and handing out informational postcards and leaflets.
Few points about generics: generic drugs in Ontario are made in Canada, mostly in Ontario. Other places may have cheaper drugs, made in India, for instance. And 75% of the government's drug expenditures are NOT generic drugs but brand name companies, all based outside Canada. While the generic industry fills 63% of prescriptions (at 25% of the total cost of drugs), and are made here.
The generic drug industry employs 9,000 people in Ontario. But if Ontarians want cheaper drugs, I'm sure this is possible: cheaper drugs can be imported from countries that don't bother with such fripperies as unions, safety standards, or living wages for workers.
Keep up the good work Sineed. This is a sleeper issue for many, but in rural Ontario there is real worry, and very strong support for our pharmacists. I have been out working the land and listening to my tractor radio. Every day on the local call in show people call in to talk about this and there has been near universal support and some really good and clear explanations from some local small town pharmacists.
That's encouraging to hear, BA - the feeling amongst the pharmacists is that the pharmacists' organizations are putting out a good clear message, but no-one's listening. Today we had one single media outlet at the press conference. When we posed outside in our labcoats, holding up "stop the cuts" signs, lots of people were taking our picture, but when we asked who they were, they'd sheepishly reply that they were from pharmacists' organizations. We were photographing each other.
The legislation is in committee at the moment and some pharmacists were presenting - I couldn't get into the committee room, so I'm going to be checking Hansard to see what's happening - dunno if there'll be anything in the media.
I was thed original poster on this thread. I just got hit again. This time it was an Angus Ried poll. It was a push poll involving questions regarding the pharma industry. The questions asked about my support for our local MPP if she did not strongly come out against the proposed pharma subsidy changes. Did I think that shorter hours for pharmacies would cause I deterioriation in our health care system.. THe question was repeated about getinng the advice of pharmacists and on and on.
At the end I asked the woman doing the survey if she realized it was a push poll and she agreed right away that it was.
Re-read what a "push poll" is - that is not a push poll.
Not only that, I find it impossible to believe the pollster's representative would be chatty like that. Nor is there any indication from those questions they are sponsored by pharmacists. In fact I would say it more likely a government poll.
It's not a push poll - what pharmacies are doing is getting people to sign a petition.
Isn't that the same thing. A push poll manipulates - the signature is simply the manifestation of success.
So everybody who does a petition is guilty of nefarious push-polling every time they collect signatures to, say, dissuade the government from locating a dump over top of an aquifer containing the world's purest water supply?
Isn't that the same thing. A push poll manipulates - the signature is simply the manifestation of success.
Except despite your insistance there is no push polling going on. My partner was polled by Angus Reid today. She got off the phone and said - 'well the government is sure worried'. The poll was NOT trying to create support for the pharmacists position. So your contention is false on the face of it.