Recent Poll Shows 76% of Americans Want Public Option
The poll is from mid-June, and was discussed by Sam Stein at The Huffington Post:
New poll numbers from NBC/Wall Street Journal produce two major and potentially conflicting story lines when it comes to the Obama administration’s efforts for a health care overhaul. On the one hand, the American public overwhelmingly favors a choice between getting insurance coverage either through the private market or a government run option. Indeed, 76 percent of respondents said it was either “extremely” or “quite” important to “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.”
Another, contradictory, result from the same poll found only 33% specifically approved of Pres. Obama’s health care reform plan — but this may be at least partly because they did not know much about it:
In the same NBC/WSJ poll, only 33 percent of respondents said they thought the president’s health care plan, to the extent they knew of it, was a “good idea;” 32 percent said it was a bad idea.
In short: the administration has yet to complete the sale. An additional 30 percent of the public had no opinion of Obama’s proposal for reform. But when read a description of the general outline — requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, an employer mandate, tax credits for lower income families to buy coverage, and tax increases on wealthier Americans to pay for it – the number of respondents in support rose to 55 percent.
Jane Hamsher points to this poll, and to Mary Landrieu’s continued quest for a centrist option (Jane has a video there of Landrieu saying this, apparently — I couldn’t listen to it because I’m blogging from the library), and asks where this woman’s head is at:
Seventy-six percent of the country wants a public plan, Landrieu doesn’t. Center of what — her own ego?
Democrats control the House, the White House, and the Senate — with a 60 vote majority. Yet they can’t find a way to do what 76% of the country wants in the midst of a health care crisis because they’re focused on making three rich Republicans happy.
What the hell is it going to take?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
48 Responses to “Recent Poll Shows 76% of Americans Want Public Option”
What I want to know is: Who the hell do they (76% of American) think they are?
Don't they know that there are six Senators that know exactly what we need / want / deserve and are trying their damnedest to keep it from happening!
And I'll bet you that 76% is conservative. Pretty impressive numbers. Elected leaders, head's up or heads will roll. Read the French Revolution while you're waiting your turn to tee off at the fareway.
Consensus in committee just announced, but no full member vote until fall.
Waiting for a sign the economy is getting better?
I had to read your comment twice Sil before I realized what you were saying… HAH, At first I thought you were saying that 76% “WERE” (not “IS”) conservative. Too funny.
Seems I'll always have trouble equating “conservative” with anything positive in regards to Health Care or the Public Option.
“What the hell is it going to take?”
The answer is, much more intelligence than the Obama and hard-core Dems in Washington, and the hard-core “challenged”-in-numerous-ways proponents of the current health care initiative, possess or will ever exhibit.
This never was difficult. You hard-core people simply chose to make it that way, needlessly.
There's been quite a bit of activity on this topic since this poll was taken, including the CBO numbers, etc. Although you characterize it as recent a more up-to-date poll would be interesting. Since the tax cost was not part of the question the best you could say is that people generally support the concept of a public plan.
The only way the public plan will get support from either party will be when a public plan PAC can give congress members as much money as the private industry PACsdo to bury it. It's not policy nor politics, nor even fiscal philosophy, it cold hard cash.
And you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Obama wanted to do the opposite of what Bill Clinton did. But leaving anything in the hands of poseurs like Pelosi and Reid is the wrong idea. The democrats know that if the reform ends up looking like it does more harm than good (or if there is no reform at all despite the need to at least begin reform), they will lose more in the midterms than in the other case.
If the voters are unhappy, the democrats will be unhappy. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to do things democrats in general don't want unless it will make voters happy. If being bipartisan would increase the chances of making the public more satisfied, then the left would have had to forego some of its wishes. But if appeasing the blue dogs will harm both voters and the party, why give republicans both an ideological as well as political boon by caving in? It's senseless and irresponsible.
We all know that every lost democrat seat in the midterms is going to be proclaimed as the “public turning against Obama's megaultrasuperüberleftism haha in ur faec libs!!”. So the time for reform is now, or “maybe in 2011 when we've won a few seats and won't feel sulky”. I agree that not all democrats are non-ideological and intelligent voices on health-care. But does anyone think that the chances for reform will improve in a climate where the party of Inhofe, Boehner, Grassley and the other “euthanasia”-screamers will have more power. or why not the male senator who quiveringly spoke of the five women who would be endangered by Obama's evil reform (you know, his three daughters and his wife).
There are good eggs and bad eggs among the democrats. But we don't need to add more red to the mixture in order to get better reform. The republicans couldn't even make a counteroffer and seems to prefer peddling rhetoric in order to stop reform and increase their chances in the midterms. Reform needs to happen now and it should be a good foundation for further improvements that makes the system easier to oversee, correct and improve in the future. It should be seen as a beginning and some concessions are inevitable, yet at the same time good results should not be sacrificed on the altar of the sulking elephant. The Finance committee should be ignored.
DaGoat is right. The poll is over a month old, which is eons in today's political environment.
Support for the public plan has eroded as people learn more of the details and see that the promises being made are just not plausible. On top of that, even when the support level was high, support for actually paying for it was not high.
Basically, people are fine with having other people have a public option, but they don't want it to affect them personally either by changing their own current health coverage or by raising their taxes. As long a magical unicorn comes along to make all of that happen, then sure, why not?
There are two more options that are bipartisan and have a good chance of success, yet the Finance Committee decided to swallow Cornyn's partisan and ideological option. That shows that said committee is not very credible and friendly to good reform. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
Is the “Public Option” the one where the Democrats come to people’s homes and kill all the old folks?
I can see if 76% are young how this would be a popular program.
“Support for the public plan has eroded as people learn more of the details and see that the promises being made are just not plausible.”
They've learned the details of the right-wing propagandistic doomsday scenarios as well.
I blame Obama for not being up-front and detailed about the plans and the need for reform, but don't try to tell me that all the criticism and discussion of the bill has been in good faith. There is too much to lose or gain for the republicans for them to be honest about reform (that goes for the democrats as well, but they at least create planned bills that the CBO can look at).
“Basically, people are fine with having other people have a public option, but they don't want it to affect them personally either by changing their own current health coverage or by raising their taxes.”
If they think their precious status quo is going to save them money or keep their taxes down, then they're obviously not very knowledgeable. They already have to pay for all the people who end up in the ER because no one was willing to pay for cheaper medication for them at an earlier stage. Their health coverage won't necessarily be changed either – the Harry-Louise bit worked once but not twice. So yes, you'd have to pay for the healthcare of the poor (actually, the rich would do that, by having their taxes return to Clinton-levels oh nooooooo). But you wouldn't have to pay for them becoming so sick they end up in the ER, and all the other associated costs.
When 3000 people died in 2001, there was no fear of unforeseen consequences or any qualms about costs. Now we have 20 thousand dying every year and yet the democrats are supposed to let down their voters and risk losing the house in 2010. Does not compute.
Digging up a poll from June 17th is pretty sad attempt at proving a point.
So Americans are scared of taxes (that most of them won't have to pay) and of change, yet their health coverage consistently becomes more costly and the US budget allocation for healthcare also grows every year. The US public shows a lot of concern for economic problems and particularly healthcare costs, for the entire country and themselves. They want the cake but want to keep it as well. I recommend granting them one wish.
No doubt that 76% figure has been eroded by the fear tactics and disinformation (bought into by people like jwest for example) that have become the mainstay of “conservative dialogue” in the 21st century, tactics which when translated to a national scale interfere with progress of almost any kind, and consequently end up adversely effecting R's and D's alike. Sorry if seems like I'm speaking the obvious here, apparently it isn't obvious enough.
You're over-simplifying, I think, but I think we're missing the point by claiming we need a public option because three quarters liked it (as long as they don't have to act as if they live in the real world).
Many many Americans believe homosexuality is wrong or that the earth is 6000 years old. What matters is good results for a sustainable tab. If the public option makes that more probable, it should be in there. Words like “socialism” or “government bureaucrats” are completely useless.
Disinformation like the CBO scoring?
C'mon, you guys can do better than that. Sure, there's lies and distortions going around all over- but I think you know very well that what is killing support for the public option bill is that people are hearing objective analysis of it which is not flattering and not consistent with the president's rhetoric.
Ain't it the truth! Earlier jwest tried to hijack Joe G's earlier post that showed to what degree (and how desperately) the right pushing the “euthanize the old folks” lie and now he jumps onto this thread with the same BS.
Kastanj, my post is still there.
I agree with you that buzzwords are often counter productive, and that polls in and of themselves can be of limited value.
CStanley, I think you underestimate the degree to which the public is susceptible to fear tactics. That should be fairly obvious given the history of the leadup to the Iraq War. And yes, it would be great if we were all fact-based and objective in our analysis.
“but I think you know very well that what is killing support for the public option bill is that people are hearing objective analysis of it which is not flattering and not consistent with the president's rhetoric.”
54 % of Americans are all for a government-run option that is funded by taxing the rich: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/p…
You, Stanley, claimed that people are scared of their coverage being changed, yet apparently you will be allowed to keep your doctor if you like him or her. It's not about changing the coverage to those who already have it, it's about providing coverage to those who lack it. Baucus claims his bill will give about 95 % coverage for 950 billion, but he wants to protect the insurance companies from having to behave sensibly.
“Digging up a poll from June 17th is pretty sad attempt at proving a point.”
It's amazing how fast support for ObamaCare has dropped. The CBO report basically killed it, I think.
Here's the way I think a Martian might assess things………
A minority political group finds 3rd grade rhetoric can occasionally create a slowing distraction in the change-it-to-my-way agenda of the majority party. The majority political group proceeds to whine incessantly that they can't overcome 3rd grade rhetoric and the temporary distractions start lasting longer and longer. The minority group figures why amp the sophistication when something so easy gets the job done. The majority can't figure out how to beat 3rd grade rhetoric nor work around it.
Which group do you think the Martian would actually find more sorry?
I think a public option is essential to real health care reform, moreso than reforming the current health insurance industry, which while useful, doesn't really address the overwhelming 5% per year growth of costs and personnel and health facility shortages that a real national system could control and provide. The idealogical difference is making money for investors versus providing care for everyone. In a generation, we can make some people richer while the middle and lower classes see everything but Federal Emergency Services slip away from their capacity to pay or we can see a generation that is healthier, not enslaved to their jobs because of health insurance, more innovative, more entrepeneurial and more financially secure because they don't have the specter of healthcare induced bankruptcy hanging over them. And rich people will still be rich.
It will cost money. It will take lots of oversight. It will be worth it. I would much rather see my taxes go to this than to nation building and wars.
“think a public option is essential to real health care reform, moreso than reforming the current health insurance industry, which while useful, doesn't really address the overwhelming 5% per year growth of costs”
Nah. As long as you're spending someone else's money on someone else (ObamaCare) or spending someone else's money on yourself (GOP plan), there can be no cost containment. The only way to contain costs is for the patient to start spending his own money on himself (HSA plans).
“Support for the public plan has eroded as people learn more of the details and see that the promises being made are just not plausible. On top of that, even when the support level was high, support for actually paying for it was not high.”
On top of that, now even many Democrats have concerns, not merely because of the defects in the initiative and the problem (finally being addressed) of paying its costs, but because this affects their re-election prospects (as, yes, so much, more and more of the public, is becoming concerned or worse).
“what is killing support for the public option bill is that people are hearing objective analysis of it which is not flattering and not consistent with the president's rhetoric”
Add to that the behavior of Obama and the Dems and bad Dem (“bi-partisan”) legislation earlier this year.
“As long as you're spending someone else's money on someone else (ObamaCare)”
See, seeing as Obama is doing the opposite of what Clinton did, this reveals your ability to assimilate and then regurgitate simplistic GOP rhetoric. “ObamaCare” is a scary buzzword that tells the GOP faithful: “It has something to do with Obama – be negative towards it!”.
“but because this affects their re-election prospects”
No reform will hurt the entire democrat party, and the blue dogs are the most vulnerable in such a situation. The Blue Dogs only waver because of their lobbyists.
qwert321
“Nah. As long as you're spending someone else's money on someone else (ObamaCare) or spending someone else's money on yourself (GOP plan), there can be no cost containment.”
And as long as the uninsured show up at emergency rooms for basic treatment, the other people's money they spend is YOURS. It's yours through higher hospital costs and higher insurance premiums. You are the one paying for it now, and don't forget the added expense of the private insurer's profit margin.
That extra markup is yours too.
A public option would cost everybody that makes a living, it spreads the cost across those who make more than you or me. It also removes the profit margin from the health care industry. No wonder you're against it. It's obviously a simple matter of politics.
DLS
“On top of that, now even many Democrats have concerns, not merely because of the defects in the initiative and the problem (finally being addressed) of paying its costs, but because this affects their re-election prospects”
Both Dems and Repubs who have pocketed the big bucks coming from private health care PACs will have all the money they need for reelection. You too want to make it about partisan politics, it's about money, money, money. The public plan scares the hell out of private health industry for one reason, it kills the golden goose they have dined upon for years.
The costs you point to will be paid for be YOU, through your insurance premiums and higher hospital costs. The public plan merely wishes to remove profit and spread cost across all earners. Political rhetoric about this subject is merely a smoke screen for private profits. Profits you clearly are happy to pay out of your pocket.
casual
“Here's the way I think a Martian might assess things………”
Or more likely, the Martian will see a small group of elites supported by bought and paid for politicians from both parties, kill any attempt to provide affordable care for all people in a society merely for profits and lobbyist money.
You see causual, martians can see the flimsy smoke screens of political prostitution that keeps many uninsured while causing the second most prevalent reason for bankruptcy. Martians can see cause and effect.
Why you can't see this glaring fact is beyond me.
Here's some (grownup) discussion of an alternative to HR3200. Recommended reading from a consistently good blog:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2…
Yes, I think the CBO reports killed it too. They need a new plan. I've lived with socialized medicine. I liked the care I received. The only reason we can't do the real thing here is because the health care industry owns both parties.
The only way to contain costs is for the patient to start spending his own money on himself (HSA plans).
HSA's work great for savy consumers who make a LOT more than the median income in this country. You can't afford to pay for even mininum basic preventive care if your only healthcare is an HSA and you make around minimum wage. Savy is also really important. Navigating whether you need a test, whether you need the expensive treatment vs the cheaper one, etc, is not something most people are very good at. They expect their doctors to be their advocates, when increasingly, those doctors make more money by providing more care instead of better care. Naturally, the people pushing HSA's either don't consider those issues or don't care.
Spence,
You must be wrong. I know that Democrats want to kill the old people (the white ones, at least), because my mailman’s brother-in-law met a guy who told him all about this stuff.
Years ago I found out the Republican were trying to starve school kids with “Draconian” cuts to a lunch program. Man, I don’t know how big a “Draconian” is, but it must be something, ‘cause people were screaming like they were cutting the kid’s heads off.
If you really want to know the truth about what’s going on, just ask around.
“HSA's work great for savy consumers who make a LOT more than the median income in this country. You can't afford to pay for even mininum basic preventive care”
What's basic preventive care to you? Some sort of pill? No, it's telling a patient that he might be developing diabetes and that he should eat right and exercise. I'll cut out the middle man for ya. Eat right and exercise.
“Both Dems and Repubs who have pocketed the big bucks coming from private health care PACs will have all the money they need for reelection. You too want to make it about partisan politics, it's about money, money, money. The public plan scares the hell out of private health industry for one reason, it kills the golden goose they have dined upon for years.”
I'm correctly identifying Democratic partisan politics and political ideology as well as misconduct in a number of ways (wrongly rushing to do this and other legislative measures for reasons never divulged and the subject of speculation; being misleading or downright dishonest about the consequences of this new health care initiative; exploiting the still-easily-exploitable, shamelessly, and so on), which is what everyone who is paying attention to this initiative and activity related to it (and others in Washington) shoudl be doing.
The insurers and other big private parties (with whom the Dems are notoriously involved, not “above”) are involved and scared and see the eventual trend as we all do, and would rather cooperate and retain some presence and profits rather than lose them all at once, an unlikely but nevertheless possible alternative.
“The costs you point to will be paid for be YOU, through your insurance premiums and higher hospital costs. The public plan merely wishes to remove profit and spread cost across all earners. Political rhetoric about this subject is merely a smoke screen for private profits. Profits you clearly are happy to pay out of your pocket.”
No, the costs I point to will be paid for by us, likely some of us much more than others, through higher taxes (the rest, through more borrowing). Note that this is the last thing we should be subjecting ourselves to not only during an economic downturn, but after Obama has dwarfed our previous spending and borrowing prior to now. (Fiscal responsibilty is predictably the farthest thing from Dem policy.)
And the principal defect early in the history of this initiative has been the deliberate evasion and neglect of the costs of it and what will be done to raise the taxes to pay those costs. (Obama and the other Dems cannot possibly believe much of the public truly believes the dishonest nonsense that the costs will largely be paid through all kinds of prospective magical savings that conversion from public to private care — which is denied dishonestly as an obvious goal of the initiative — will yield.)
Meanwhile, rather than rely on Kathy's original poll, look at this, which describes what we all already know, that the public's concern about the health care initiative is growing, and that there are specifics that the Dems need to address if they want to allay these concerns and if they want to exploit what advantage they may actually possess.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124890178435291…
It will cost money. It will take lots of oversight. It will be worth it. I would much rather see my taxes go to this than to nation building and wars.
Amen times infinity.
It will cost money. It will take lots of oversight. It will be worth it. I would much rather see my taxes go to this than to nation building and wars.
And if we all agree that the Iraq War was sold on false pretenses, then I'd think we'd agree not to allow the government to sell another costly debacle to us under false pretenses.
HSA's work great for savy consumers who make a LOT more than the median income in this country. You can't afford to pay for even mininum basic preventive care if your only healthcare is an HSA and you make around minimum wage. Savy is also really important. Navigating whether you need a test, whether you need the expensive treatment vs the cheaper one, etc, is not something most people are very good at. They expect their doctors to be their advocates, when increasingly, those doctors make more money by providing more care instead of better care. Naturally, the people pushing HSA's either don't consider those issues or don't care.
Most of the GOP plans have included tax credits for purchase of catastrophic health insurance as well as some feathering of the HSA for people at various levels above poverty level. It was argued in a previous thread where I pointed out one such plan that the amount was still insufficient, which may well be the case- but that only means we should consider funding such a plan at higher levels (which is still likely to cost far less than the public option plan on the table.)
As for the savviness of consumers, forgive me for not feeling that we need the federal government's guidance. There are proposals from both sides of the aisle to create consumer education sources which will give patients information about which treatments are most effective and most cost effective. And when doctors have to respond to price conscious consumers, the problem of providing excessive health care will magically disappear (as a veterinarian who has to recommend best possible treatments at prices that my clients can actually afford, I know of which I speak here.)
>>>Most of the GOP plans have included tax credits for purchase of catastrophic health insurance as well as some feathering of the HSA for people at various levels above poverty level. <<<
The GOP's/McCain's plan involves patients spending other people's money through $4000 tax credits. How wisely will people spend other people's money? I oppose the GOP/McCain plan.
My son got into an accident with a lawnmower a couple of years back, after the trip to the hospital, the 6 hours of surgery, the two weeks in the hospital, the 4 month of Rehab, the bill came out to over 100ks.
HSA? You got to be kidding…
If you think that HSA are the solution to the problem, you have no idea what health care costs.
HSA's are not meant to be the sole source of funding for things beyond routine, preventative health care. They are set up to pay copays, deductibles, and other noncovered expenses such as alternative treatments (acupuncture, chiropractic), and vitamins or other supplements.
They are used in conjunction with a high deductible, lower premium health insurance plan, not in place of health insurance.
And although you are right, qwert, that under McCain's or Ryan's plan the working poor would be spending “other people's money” in the form of a tax credit for their HSA, the amount would have an annual cap which would prevent them from spending unwisely. You're not going to spend down the $4000 on copays to visit a podiatrist for a hangnail or to take your child to the pediatrician for every sniffle if you know that you'll run out of money before the end of the year.
CS
“You're not going to spend down the $4000 on copays to visit a podiatrist for a hangnail or to take your child to the pediatrician for every sniffle if you know that you'll run out of money before the end of the year.”
Come on CS,
So your saying the high cost of insuring the poor this way is due to bad feet? What's much more likely is a parent won't take a kid to the doctor for a bad chest cold due to lack of funds. When it turns to pneumonia, will they be more apt to come up with the money?
You make it sound like the working poor's favorite pass time is running up medical bills. Where does that remarkable assumption come from?
CS Just to clarify.
Today's uninsured working poor regularly show up in ERs not for hang nails but for pneumonia. Your argument predicates that the poor burns through resources today in a way that is somehow frivolous, and limiting their “other people's money” will somehow change their current medical habits. If you had made the argument that a medical credit would be available for the poor so that they could go to a doctor before a condition deteriorated into an emergency room crisis, then I agree with you.
Hemm- NO, I'm not laying this on poor people. It's simple common sense, as well as documented reality, that EVERYONE overuses routine health care when there isn't a cost incentive to not do so. That is actually one of the major problems in our system today, and although Obama finds that it's more politically acceptable to blame the waste on greedy doctors or bureaucratic insurance companies, the fact is that most of the problem comes from people making irrational decisions when they don't have to personally pay the bill.
The study I linked to above showed that people sought treatment less frequently when they had to share in the payment- but overall, quality of their health was not affected. There are a few caveats to that, so read the whole thing if you are interested.
And no, Hemm, I'm not making the argument that poor people currently overuse ER services for trivial problems. What I'm saying is that studies show that EVERYONE overuses primary care and other services when they don't have a direct cost associated with doing so- and logically the poor would not be exempt from that facet of human nature if they had prepaid health insurance without any cosharing of cost.
>>>My son got into an accident with a lawnmower a couple of years back, after the trip to the hospital, the 6 hours of surgery, the two weeks in the hospital, the 4 month of Rehab, the bill came out to over 100ks.
HSA? You got to be kidding…
If you think that HSA are the solution to the problem, you have no idea what health care costs.<<<<
Your son would be covered under the catastrophic coverage that comes with HSAs (HDHP). So why do you oppose HSAs again?
catastrophic coverage? when does it kick in?
Count me in the 76%. As far as funding the program, I would gladly cut a check to a non-profit for coverage – even if it is the “dreaded” government.