Yes, Americans Do Want A Public Option
Yet another poll has come up with the same results: Americans want a public health care option. But — count on it — Republicans and conservative Democrats will continue to thwart the will of the people.
Compromise means give and take — but the public option may be so compromised at this point that keeping it would be a sell-out. Ezra Klein thinks it may be better to achieve the benefits of a strong public option via other means:
Most of the energy in the Senate right now is being directed into a mad rush for compromise proposals on the public option. This reflects the sense that the right compromise on the public option is a compromised public option. That’s true to an extent, but you can define the public option so far downward — a state-based, opt-in, trigger-dependent, nonprofit option, for instance, is seriously under consideration right now — that you’d be better off trading it away for something that’s more meaningful.
… Having something called a public option is not, in the end analysis, as important as achieving the goals of the public option, and at this point, the policy itself is getting so watered down that it might be worth attempting to achieve its goals in a more straightforward fashion.
25 Responses to “Yes, Americans Do Want A Public Option”
Strange results coming out of this poll with about 60% believing in the public option but:
In other words, a majority of folks are in favor of a public option even if they don't think it will improve the system? I suppose it goes to how the question is asked, and when. The Thomson/Reuters poll was conducted from Nov 9-17 with 2,999 households. Compare that to the latest Gallup Poll, conducted a few days later with 1,017 adults:
Depends on how you ask the question
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/new…
Thats why most polls on this have to be taken with a grain of salt, when other polls show the opposite.
Regardless of the support or non support of a general idea of a public option, we do know that no majority of the public supports any of the legislation moving through Congress. Only a majority of democrats support that, with republicans greatly opposed and a smaller majority of independents opposed as well.
Of course anyone following the health care debate would have to answer strongly disagree and that it will be the same ease of getting health care in 12 moths as it is today since neither of the bills will have taken effect. It is hard to gain much insight from such a poorly conceived poll.
I'm thinking that many folks just might be too cynical. I have the impression that a good chunk of the country believes that we got some serious problems with our system, especially when it comes to its cost. Perhaps its just that the public lacks any faith that anything going through congress will do anything to address them. I mean, what's Congress' approval rating, around 15 – 20%?
Of course you could try to constrain the health insurance companies through regulation. But remember under the terms of both versions of the bills the enforcement of regulations and the terms of the legislation is left up to, yes, you guessed it, the states. I guess because they have done such a bang up job in the past.
Did you know it is against federal law for insurance companies to deny claims based on preexisting conditions with anything less than outright proof of fraud when the patient applied for the insurance? it was passed to stop insurance companies from mining applications for simple mistakes to justify denial of large claims. Do you want to guess why it has been so ineffective? That's right, it was left up to the states to enforce it.
depends who you ask, how you ask it and how much they are presently receiving from the government. end of story.
And an even larger majority would be opposed if you asked “would you support a public plan if it killed puppies? ” I suppose your point is that the wilder the claim the more unreliable the result?
This seems to be a common refrain with you. Weren't you the poster who said we shouldn't trust a poll of doctors that showed 75% supported the public option done as part of a Harvard Medical School peer reviewed study because you found another poll that said only 40% supported it. And the second poll you found more credible was a card return poll sent to 400 doctors (and they didn't know how many cards had been returned) conducted by the Investor Business Daily whose previous contribution to the debate was that if Stephan Hawkin lived under the British National Health Service he would have died along time ago. And Stephan Hawkin does live under the NHS.
I think Leonidas makes a good point. I could go out and find another poll saying people DON'T want a public option, but this probably isn't a decision we should be basing on polls anyway. My feeling is that people don't have a problem with the general concept of a public option, but become less likely to support it as more specifics are added. especially regarding costs.
“Cantor said there is a much different result when people are asked “would you support a public plan that would replace your healthcare?” In fact, he has seen polling data that shows “over 61 percent of Americans reject this notion of a public option.”'
That's what I hate about poll questions. They don't tell whole story. I'd support a public plan that replaced my insurance if it were just as good or better than mine. But if it were worse, then why would I want to support it? The assumption many people make in this poll's question is that the public plan would be worse than their existing plan. Quite frankly if the question were asked of me and I could only give a “yes” or “no” answer I'd say “no”. I would not assume that the plan is equal to or better than mine. But if I didn't have insurance then I'd say “yes”. And if the question was, “would you support a public plan just as good or better than your current healthcare plan and would replace your healthcare plan?” Then I'd say “yes”.
I remember last fall I received a phone call from some pollster and the way they asked the questions and my answers made me seem like a rabid right ring Republican religious zealot…. “Are you Christian”, “Do you oppose abortion”…. “Do you believe people should own guns”….. (and others)… The answer to these are all yes… But there was no room for explanation. I may oppose abortion, but I support pro-choice policies (it's not my business what other people do). I think people should own guns, but there should be some controls and perhaps strict licenses given out (we require drivers to have drivers' licenses, why shouldn't we require owners of weapons designed for the express purpose of killing to be tested and then given licenses?) I'm certainly a Christian…. but so what? I disagree with most Christians because they spend too much time worrying about the sins of others when they don't keep their own house in order.
At any rate polls are interesting but unless the questions are “yes” and “no” around specific policies or candidates (such as “Will you vote for Obama?” or “Do you support the healthcare legislation before the Senate?”) the polls are less reliable. The above question about supporting a public plan to replace one's health insurance being a good example of a bad polling question.
The point of the public option is to give incentive to the insurance companies to become more than gentrified extortionists. Frankly I'm not convinced most people in this country have a very good handle on how things are currently working and in whose interest they are working when it comes to healthcare. I currently pay a healthy chunk of change every month for health insurance that on a practical basis does me no good, until I pay the first 3K. Now I'm in good health, but if something catastropic should occur, then I could lose my home or be out on the street, so this is like protection money – in the mob sense if you ask me. Bring on single payer babee! (or at the very least, a public option that isn't a watered down joke)
….Who looks at more than one poll and draws the conclusions that you have to look at the qustions that are actually asked? Yes. I'm also the poster who pointed out that if you believed one strange poll that was posted, you'd have to go along with another result in it that indicated that 5% of those voting for Obama in new Jersey did so thinking he was the anti-christ. Taking a result from a poll is nice and dandy, but you better have a bit more before asserting a definitive proclaimation that isn't supported more widely or consistently.
Of course there could indeed be a 5% in New Jersey who voted for Obama with the understanding that he is the anti-Christ. Believe what you want.
There's a slight majority in favor of the public option. Far fewer strongly want the public option, and many even who do favor it have concerns about the costs, and concerns if their current situation will be made worse. All the proponents do when confronted with the truth is have childish fits and attack the messengers. That only dims the support and the prospects for eventually getting it, even though it's far from dead at this time.
“Depends on how you ask the question”
“Half the participants in the poll were told the government plan would be less expensive. Fifty-two percent in that group said they supported it – and 35 percent were opposed.
The other half were also told that the government would run the plan and make decisions about what was covered. That question elicited only 44 percent support – and 38 percent opposition.”
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news…
Changing support levels (see table, right side)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/…
“It shouldn't be that hard to conduct a decent poll on the public option, but so many pollsters seem to be getting it wrong. …”
How to Poll on the Public Option
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/how-to-p…
[earlier this year]
“It is worth evaluating polling on the public option, which has begun to be widely cited in the blogosphere, particularly by liberals who believe most of the polling favors them. …”
Public Support for the Public Option
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-s…
I think what it means is that a majority of Americans want a public option, but they have no faith in this Congress (or little faith) to produce one that's strong enough and covers enough Americans to actually help people and lower the cost of health care. Right now, from what I understand, the public option as it stands (and it's constantly changing, in the direction of getting smaller and weaker) would only cover about three million Americans.
I can't say as I blame other Americans for being skeptical about how robust or effective the P.O. (if it survives) is going to be, because I am, too. It's pretty obvious when you start reading the coverage or listening to the debate in Congress.
I could go out and find another poll saying people DON'T want a public option, but this probably isn't a decision we should be basing on polls anyway.
Except, DaGoat, that every major poll for months now has shown that most Americans DO want a public option. They obviously have doubts about how effective of a public option we're going to end up getting, but they DO want a public option. And they want it to cover more people. These results have been consistent for a long time now.
Actually, thinking that things won't work out for the best doesn't conflict with them wanting the public option. They just realize that while they may want a public option their desires won't be coming true because the health insurance industry won't stand for it.
I had two points in my post.
The first, the killing puppies one, is that when you change the question you change the results and you can't use one to disprove the other. In effect they become separate polls. In this case the original poll asked people if they support the public option as they generally understand it. The second poll, in effect asks if they support a public option if it cost them their current employee provided health care insurance. It is not a surprise that fewer people favored the public option if it affected their current health care insurance. It is well known that maintaining people's employee provided health insurance is the third rail of the health care debate. Touch it and you die
My example was intended to be slightly humorous and maybe it missed for that reason. What I meant was you could get an even larger negative response if you qualified the public option with something the public dislikes even more than losing their employee provided health insurance. But it still doesn't invalidate the original poll about the public option when it is polled without qualification.. Just as the original poll doesn't invalidate our separate finding that people don't as readily accept the public option if they have to kill puppies or lose their own employee provided health insurance to get it.
The second point was about the two polls asking about support for the public option among doctors. The two polls asked the same question but got dramatically different results. You implied this meant you can't trust polls. Of course, what it means is that one of the polls is wrong.
One was conducted by Harvard Medical School and used in a peer reviewed study. The second was a card return poll conducted by Investor's Business Daily. To accept that your conclusion that this disagreement proves that polling is invalid you must accept that the methodology of the two polls are equal. I dispute that. A card return poll is about as valid as an internet poll. Only the people who are passionate about the question will respond. This doesn't come close to the methodology of random sampling of used in formal polling, such as the Harvard study, to represent the target population. Especially considering the Investor's Business Daily pollsters could not even remember how many card returns they had.
The short form is that the Harvard study is not a silly poll. The Investor's Business Daily's poll is.
Polling has a valid statistical basis. Polls which are properly conducted are quite accurate to a known degree based on the sample size in relation to the target survey population.. It is important that you know the question asked and if any questions were asked it before to 'prime the pump' to evaluate the poll.
Most people seem to judge the validity of poll based on how closely it supports their own biases and ideas. I suspect that is what we are seeing here.
Given your distrust of polls I am interested to learn on what you based your statement that the majority of the population rejects the health care reform bills. I know you didn't talk to everyone in the country. I would have remembered you asking me.
Except, DaGoat, that every major poll for months now has shown that most Americans DO want a public option.
Polls have also shown that many if not most Americans don't understand what a public option is. I tried to find how or if Reuters defined it for their poll but couldn't find the raw data – let me know if you have better luck.
As I said in my first post this decision should be based and discussed on it's merits, not on poll results. The details of health care reform are esoteric and complex, and polls of mostly uninformed citizens just aren't going to be that helpful. I don't mean that to sound elitist, just that there are some issues that have to be hammered out by people with in-depth knowledge of budgeting and the heath care issues, and this is one of them.
Personally I am OK with the concept of a public option but am very skeptical of the government's ability to craft it so as to make it economical enough to lower costs while avoiding putting insurance companies out of business completely.
All this wouldn't matter if our system was even close to the best. We pay almost twice as much as Switzerland, and our proposed system without the public option is close to theirs. We pay almost three times what the French do with a single payer public system. Our results are near the bottom along with the Easterrn Europe former USSR satellites. I would gladly stay with a private system if the results were really at the top of WHO stats.
I think we're in the same boat then on this one
I think the public would be a lot more supportive of the public option if they had some more faith in our Congress to get it done right. With their punitive rating, I think the lack of support for the PO might well be correlated to the overall approval of congress itself.
Why wouldn't people want a public option? It will lower costs for medical care, decrease the cost of insurance, give us better medical care, make sure everyone has medical coverage, hell is there anything that the “public option” hasn't been claimed to do? I would want it too if I believed any of those things had the smallest chance of working.
Although I don't believe that any legislation or public policy decision should be based on “poll results,” that is more because poll results are not exact or accurate enough as a guide to public opinion to base those decisions on, but I do not agree that public opinion should not be considered an important factor on which to base legislative and policy decisions. Government is supposed to be responsive to the will of the people in a democracy. I agree that sticking one's finger in the wind is not a good way to run a government, but neither is steamrollering over a clear public consensus. We had eight years of the latter; I am not up for any more.
Personally I am OK with the concept of a public option but am very skeptical of the government's ability to craft it so as to make it economical enough to lower costs while avoiding putting insurance companies out of business completely.
It probably will not surprise you that I do not regard keeping insurance companies in business as a priority in crafting health care reform legislation. I'm not saying I *want* insurance companies to go out of business — I actually don't. But I am not in favor of proactively shaping health care reform legislation in such a way that they don't have to suffer *too* much competition. I believe, rather, it is incumbent upon the private insurance industry — which has been bleeding the public like leeches for the past 60 years — to show that insurance companies can provide the service to the public *that they are supposed to provide* — which is insurance coverage that actually covers actual health care at a price that people can afford. Insurance companies are supposed to be in business to make a profit by providing a service or a product that people need and can meaningfully use.* They are not supposed to be in business to make a profit while making it impossible for most Americans to get the benefit of the service they are selling. I believe *that's* called robbery.
I think we're in the same boat then on this one
I love it when that happens.
False.
You have a selective memory kathy or don't read too many polls.It has seeawed back and forth and varied among polls for quite a while.
The one thing I have found consistent as far as public option spport, is that support tends to go up dramatically if it is to be done by individual States and not the Federal government. That much has been fairly consistent.
I distrust individual polls, but if every poll reflects the same opinion over a large span of time I distrust them much less. On the other hand if they show different things and seesaw I give them not as much credence.