More Good News for the Public Option
A new Times/CBS News poll asks the question, “Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?”
Sixty-five percent answered yes. Twenty-six percent answered no.
More: “[S]upport for a public option has jumped 5 points since late August and opposition to it has dropped 8 points.”
And even more: The Congressional Budget Office says that a public option plan pegged to Medicare rates saves oodles and bundles of money:
According to Congress Daily, the CBO says attaching the public plan to Medicare rates will save even more money than originally thought:
In a bid to wrangle concessions from the Blue Dog Coalition on healthcare reform, House leaders Thursday released CBO estimates for liberals’ preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer.
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., a Blue Dog co-chair, said any possible new momentum toward a public option tethered to Medicare rates is, in part, “because of the cost issue” and the updated CBO score.
The original House bill required the public plan to pay providers 5 percent more than Medicare reimbursement rates. But as part of a package of concessions to Blue Dogs, the House Energy and Commerce Committee accepted an amendment that requires the HHS Secretary to negotiate rates with providers. That version of the plan will save only $25 billion.
In total, a public plan based on Medicare rates would save $110 billion over 10 years. That is $20 billion more than earlier estimates, a spokesman for House Speaker Pelosi said.
In other words, the conservatives want to spend $85 billion more than the liberals do. Moreover, the CBO is estimating savings to the government. That is to say, the $85 billion reflects reduced federal spending on subsidies because premiums in the public plan will be lower. Savings to individuals and businesses paying lower premiums will be much larger than $85 billion, and politically, much more important.
More on the above stories at Memeorandum.
14 Responses to “More Good News for the Public Option”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV. TMV said: More Good News for the Public Option: A new Times/CBS News poll asks the question, “Would you favor or op.. http://bit.ly/Eh6Kr [...]
[...] View original post here: More Good News for the Public Option [...]
LOL we already been over the poll in the other thread, various iterations of the question were asked and the results varied widely depending on which one 65% was the top mark the bottom one had more people disapproving of it, cherry pick your favorite. Guess those liberal outlets figured the more times they asked the question the better chance they would have for a big number. Now we get to listen to liberal pundits try to make hay out of it.
Well just last week we had this
Opposition to Health Care Plan Hits New High of 56%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/…
Oh and the summary of your Poll Kathy
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_health_c…
Not exactly cheery even from the left leaning pollsters:
And the details aren't even out yet, thats likely to take poll numbers down once people see the actual plan. I bet the left-wing of the Democratic Party will try to present it and rush to a vote before people get a chance to look and think about it.
Conversely Leonidas, Rasmussen seems to consistently lean to the right and I don't have any faith in them either. It's pretty clear polls are heavily influenced by the way the questions are framed. I think it's probably true most people are open to the idea of a public option, but when they are asked if they would increase the deficit to fund a public option the support drops. I would guess if the question were framed as would people support a public option if it were to lead to a government takeover of health care (as many are actively hoping) the numbers would be different.
I really wonder if polls have any usefulness at all in the health care debate. There are too many what-ifs and the subject is too complex to boil it down to a few yes-or-no questions.
They are also the most accurate
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduat…
It is due to bias its due to methodology. While most other polls just interview whoever they come accross, Rasmussen only tabulates voters.
At the risk of the pot calling the kettle black, here's a grammar and proofreading alert:
It is due to bias its due to methodology. While most other polls just interview whoever they come accross, Rasmussen only tabulates voters.
I'm not T-Steel, but if you aspire to write your own columns on this site, Leo, at least clean up your wording before hitting the post button. Try this:
It is due to bias, it's due to methodology. While most other polls just interview whomever they come across, Rasmussen only tabulates voters.
Pregnancy and childbirth are risky conditions; women have died of them in the past, they are dying of them now and more will die in the future. Pregnancy without prenatal care is even more risky for mother and child both. And this care is expensive in the USA.
Therefore, I think that every American woman should take Leonidas's words to heart and forgo having sex so they won't ever risk having children. They should explain to their husbands and boyfriends why they are no longer “putting out.” I'm sure the men in their lives will respect their wishes not to be a drain on the public coffers.
“In other words, the conservatives want to spend $85 billion more than the liberals do. “
No, conservatives don't want a program that is so expensive that it necessitates under-paying providers, thus causing unintended (but predictable) consequences.
Well if they had a spell checker in the comments box I would use it lol.
Excuse me for being skeptical but any link to this estimate. These “savings” may just be less “spendings” in actuality. When government talks about “savings” it always raises my eyebrow. I'd also be curious as to how much medicaid is to be cut.
Edit:
Looks like the CBO estimates are supposed to come out Tuesday so guess I'll have to wait till then,
All that's missing are the two signs, “83% Love the Public Option” and “Health Care Is A Right.”
[chuckle]
“They are also the most accurate
It is due to bias its due to methodology. While most other polls just interview whoever they come accross, Rasmussen only tabulates voters.”
They poll “likely voters,” Leonidas—those most likely to turnout to vote in the coming election. However, my question would be, when did one’s constituency include only those most motivated to vote? Sure, that’s how candidates win elections, but is that necessarily how they should govern (i.e. cater only to those most energized and motivating to vote in the next election)? If so, then Congressmen have no business claiming they represent the citizenry of the United States, especially when little more than have the potential voters turnout on election day.
This is why I follow Rasmussen closely in terms of likely electoral outcomes. But I discount them on most issues of governance. I want to know what the citizenry feels, not just likely voters.
[...] More Good News for the Public Option (themoderatevoice.com) [...]