Gallup Shock: Health Coverage Not Gov’t Responsibility (Guest Voice)
Gallup Shock: Health Coverage Not Gov’t Responsibility
by Jon Wells
An astounding Gallup poll recently came out that states that a majority of Americans (50%-47%) now believe the government shouldn’t be responsible for making sure everyone has health insurance. That’s amazing in and of itself, but when you look at the trend it’s simply astonishing. Just three years ago in 2006, the split was 69% in favor and 28% against. That’s a 44-point swing against governmental involvement in a fairly short amount of time.
Secondarily, but just as important, the percentage of Americans who want to maintain the current system based on private insurance has shot to a recent high of 61%. The majority have always wanted to keep it rather than replace it with a government system, but it’s only recently that the gap has widened so dramatically.
More than likely, the reason the American populace has reversed its stand on federal mandated coverage is the high cost involved and the massive governmental bureaucracy and intrusion it entails. The bills being pushed now are quite simply awful, and their numerous shortcomings are recognized by conservatives, independents, and free-thinking liberals alike. There’s a responsible way to advance the laudable goal of health care reform, but a gargantuan all-or-nothing government program isn’t the way to do it.
Congressional Democrats, are you listening? The American people don’t want what you’re selling. We supposedly have a democracy, so it’s time to read the writing on the wall and change direction in the debate over health care reform. Tackling costs and helping those who can’t get insurance is worth looking at, but the big-government nanny-state approach we’ve seen so far isn’t the way to go about it.
Will they listen? I sort of doubt it. What’s being pursued on Capitol Hill isn’t a pragmatic and practical approach to figure out a centrist course on what’s best for Americans, but a partisan-driven fulfillment of an ideological goal. Democrats are so close to passing a public option that’s more like a funnel towards a single payer system than a humble alternative to private insurance, so they’re unlikely to care about the shift in attitudes when they have a Holy Grail to grab instead. Americans are growing massively skeptical, but the liberal base wants it, so the stupid voters can go to hell. Congress knows best, and all that.
Jonathan Wells is a 28-year-old husband and father who lives in Ohio and has a day job in the microbiology field. He notes that he tends “be conservative in most of my views, but by no means do I bear blind allegiance to a political party.” He stresses that he is open-minded and encourages “any civil disagreement (or uncivil agreement) any of you would care to express.” He likes to make people think – and does so on his blog Wellsy’s World.
22 Responses to “Gallup Shock: Health Coverage Not Gov’t Responsibility (Guest Voice)”
Is something that unsurprising truly astounding?
The public would recoil at any rush to immedately federalize everything, which is why incrementalism was sought with a universal federal model this time (as well as harnessing the private sector, to avoid a purely government flavor and appearance to the effort), in the form of the “private option” takeover approach.
There is still a good deal of support for this, and about half of these supporters are strong supporters.
Two shaddy questions that have nothing to do with what is on table.
First, there is no bill that include a completely government take over of the health care system.
Second, Americans prefer personal responsibilty to the government telling them what to do. Offering the public a public option has nothing to do with the government being responsible.
The change in percentages is relevant but probably has more to do with current history vs what was going on in 2006.
“Offering the public a public option has nothing to do with the [federal] government being responsible.”
On the contrary, it has everything to do with this, which is the end goal, that the federal government will ultimately be fully responsible for “paying for” and by controlling it, providing health care to everyone. The public option (set up as an “alternative” or as a “choice”) is the incrementalist takeover strategy that was chosen this time. The (obvious) goal is to replace the private sector gradually (or incrementally).
“On the contrary, it has everything to do with this, which is the end goal, that the federal government will ultimately be fully responsible for “paying for” and by controlling it,”
That's a slippery slope DLS. The “public option” that's in the bills do not have that much control.
I agree with DLS on this one, Shannon.
The end goal is, indeed, nationalized healthcare.
It's kind of like Wal-Mart. They'll come in shouting “better competition!”
But in the end, all that happens is all the other guys are out of business and all you've got left is a monopoly that can do as it pleases.
I DO agree that the 2006 events have little to do witht the trend. My gut tells me that the sharp decline is reactionary to full government one-party rule. If my gut is right, you'd find similar trends in other times when dems or repubs ruled the entire government. I think it makes people uneasy – rightly so, IMO.
HuffPo and DailyKos have consistently touted a “strong” public option as a way of getting the camel's (single payer's) nose in the tent. Progressives can't rally their own by saying that it's meant to pave the way for single payer, and at the same time claim that that's not their intent to everyone else.
They also have to answer why their so intent on public option to provide competition, while dismissing any bill that would provide normal competition in a normal market by, say …. repealing McCarran-Ferguson. Obviously, the competition part is only a cover story.
I'm suspicious of secret agendas as explanations for people's behavior. It's hard to believe many people consider socialized medicine an valuable goal unto itself.
Yet the left genuinely doesn't seem to think cost savings or efficiency improvement are worth more than lip service. And they're interested in “competition” only as a euphemism for defenestrating private insurers–not necessarily a bad idea, just not quite the normal meaning of the word.
I'm honestly at a loss to understand their reasoning. My best guess is they've got much the same confidence in the American economy that the UAW had in Detroit automakers back when. In the midst of a golden age, with boundless potential ahead, it's mean-spirited to focus on the bean count ahead of the needy.
After reading their arguments them for months, this is the best explanation I've come up with, and I'm not sure I'm happy with it. Anybody got a better one?
“First, there is no bill that include a completely government take over of the health care system.”
The question that was asked in the poll was not “do you support a complete government take-over of health care?” It was “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that all Americans have healthcare coverage?” Regardless of whether the proposal is accurately described as a “complete government take-over”, The latter question is absolutely relevant to the current debate since that is one of the main goals of health care reform, and one of the main metrics that has been applied to the proposals (ie. “how many people does it cover?”).
This poll, and the recent CMS report showing what the current proposals will do to the medicare system, I think have done great damage to the current reform efforts. At least they should.
While I agree that some on the left view this current batch of bills as the first stepping stone towards uhc, not everyone does. I don't care much for the don't give an inch because they might want a mile attitude. It seems like fear mongering to me. The middle is usually the place we should end up in these debates.
Well, I have lived with socialized medicine…been to the doctor, hospital, and seen specialists. I have close friends that practice medicine in that system. I have other friends in different countries that do the same. They and I have also lived/practiced medicine in the US system. As people that have lived around the world and had to “survive” socialized medicine, we all agree that it is better…far far better for the average person than what we have here.
I'll say again…I see a public option as a good middle place between the left and right. The left wants full uhc and the right wants private.
Shannon, it's great that you and your friends had good experiences in those systems.
Characteristically, you didn't mention anything about those systems' cost efficiency or sustainability. Do you not think those are important?
According to the “Human Development Report, 2007, United Nations. Web: hdr.undp.org.”
Health care costs twice as much per capita in the US than it does where I lived….and everyone was covered..and they live longer…and get more vacation
The biggest sustainability problem in these countries is death to birth rate.
No, Shannon, they are all facing cost control problems much the same as we are. Given how quickly technology has been able to make medicine much more expensive–and continues to do so–that's a grave concern.
“That's a slippery slope DLS.”
It's an accurate description by me. It's like so much else, plainly staring everyone in, appearing before, the face — if they're only willing to see and understand it, that is.
* * *
“The end goal is, indeed, nationalized healthcare.”
Obviously. What's sought is incrementalism (and indirection), because the public rejects an all-out, direct, instant-truly-universal approach — obviously. (It didn't help the lib Dems that their record this year of rushing to enact ridiculous measures has already repelled an increasing fraction of the public.)
“I don't care much for the don't give an inch because they might want a mile attitude.”
Well, many of us object to what's (really) being sought, for many good reasons. We also accept accomplished fact and plan to deal with it (the new problems we'll get in exchange for “solution” of old problems) as our real-world Plan B. (This health care effort is far from what the childish leftists whine about, that no “progress” will be made for another generation, etc., ad nauseum, if nothing happens this year.)
* * *
“anything about those systems' cost efficiency or sustainability”
(Note that there is no “normality” established by those systems, governments, and nations, and there is no corresponding “obligation” to see it happen here in the USA.)
I've addressed the unsustainability problem, in particular (related to cost and cost growth) numerous times, both the current Social Security and Medicare in the USA, and the problems that will be worse in Europe in the years to come, due to demographics and finances there. (Here in the USA, the Trustees of the two programs have tried to educate the public for years about the problems, too, for example.) So many advocates or proponents want what they want so badly, they choose to ignore reality all the time.
Sure, they all have some cost problems, but nothing that isn't fixable. Believe me…people with socialized medicine will give up much in order to keep their health system. They love it and would never stand it being switched over to an American type of system.
And lets face it…our current system is in far worse state. Our projected costs are through the roof.
“nothing that isn't fixable [... ] And lets face it…our current system is in far worse state.”
Maybe, maybe not. Unsustainable as is, of that there is no doubt.
Obama even made a big deal months ago about the need for Medicare and other entitlement reform, which included addressing the “runaway” [sic] cost growth problems, and has blathered along with all the other Dems about “bending [downward] the cost [growth] curve” all year.
But of course, he and the other Dems have conspicuously failed to reform Medicare, which holds especially great logical weight as the thing to do before undertaking any expansion of federal health care entitlements. “Reform” as they use the word actually means “expansion” currently, it seems — though that was transparent to many of us all along. What superficial “reform” measures there are with this effort (robbing other parties to pay for the expansion of entitlements to more [Dem] voters) don't count.
Their cost problems are trivial, ours are serious? That's not the sense I've gotten from the reading I've done.
It's not like this is sudden — it has been known, and reported, for years.
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/aging_ind…
http://www.twq.com/02spring/hewitt.pdf
http://www.ceda.berkeley.edu/papers/rlee/rlee.t…
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/een/001/art…
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/…
What's current is merely what's most up-to-date, that's all.
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/thematic_ar…
First of all, I think you are totally wrong about efficiency. When people don't get the health care they need, they don't necessarily die in their own homes. Instead, they tend to show up at emergency rooms, getting treatment which is both expensive and likely to be ineffective because it is too late. So expanding coverage increases efficiency, but does so by improving outcomes rather than lowering costs.
Cost savings are important, but they are a tough sell politically. The ad campaign in which “Harry” and “Louise” told the American people that they should oppose the Clinton health care bill because of the cost savings measures it contained was incredibly effective. Republicans are trying to repeat that today with their talk about “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma.” If Republicans succeed in removing some of the cost savings measures, we will pay more for health care. If they succeed in killing the bill completely, thousands of people will die. Given these stakes, most people on the left would be willing to sacrifice cost savings if that were necessary to get a bill through. It's a matter of valuing lives over money.
Ken, I agree with the emergency room point, it's just a tiny piece of the picture. If that plus less advertising are your answer for “efficiency,” I'd characterize it as lip service.
Of course cost savings (by which you mean restricting demand) are an impossible political sell. That's why socializing care is so dangerous from a cost perspective, and one reason countries with more socialized systems are struggling to keep the lid on costs.
The answer is not to politicize the issue. Make people weigh costs and benefits themselves.