# Poll: 57% of Americans now support public-option health care **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2009, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531 "2009-10-20T22:08:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/21 "2009-10-21T22:17:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You do realize that the extra revenue is to subsidize the uninsured and under-insured, and has nothing to do with the public option which is supposed to be revenue neutral. Not even the American public is that gullible - > [@](#): > > Nearly seven in 10 say they think that any health-care measure would increase the federal budget deficit, > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Or are you under the impression that health problems magically vanish if the government doesn’t pay? No, **you** seem to be under the impression that health care costs will magically vanish if the government does pay for them. See above for the general impression of that bill of goods. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/22 "2009-10-21T22:22:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, **you** seem to be under the impression that health care costs will magically vanish if the government does pay for them. No, but we’ll pay less for better care, judging from other countries. Unless you just want to let people die, not paying isn’t an option. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/23 "2009-10-21T22:42:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not even the American public is that gullible - > > Regards, > Shodan Your quoted finding does not address the issue. It is plausible at least that subsidizing health insurance for those who can’t afford it will increase the deficit, if we don’t go after additional funding sources. Tracing the bottom line of a public option will be simple. Why is it that you doubt that massive purchasing power will decrease costs to the government? The government already knows how to run an efficient public option. Please show us anyone who claims that health care costs vanish when paid for by the government. (What that even means is beyond me. ) Costs are costs no matter who pays. They can go down, as demonstrated all over the world. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/24 "2009-10-21T23:40:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Please show us anyone who claims that health care costs vanish when paid for by the government. (What that even means is beyond me. ) It seems to be part of the Right’s mythology that we evil liberals think we can get services from the government for free. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/25 "2009-10-21T23:44:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Then we might as well pay for it the cheapest, most effective way. Which would be some form of UHC. > > Or are you under the impression that health problems magically vanish if the government doesn’t pay? Other people’s health problems vanish if the government doesn’t pay using _my_ money, or money that could be spent to _my_ benefit. Because really, if a health problem doesn’t effect me, does it really exist? ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/26 "2009-10-22T00:28:25Z")
(to the OP) Probably not a hell of a whole lot, really. I live in Texas, and if you were to call Cornyn’s office, you would get some bullshit about how the 57% isn’t true and it will kill God and all that crap. (I am someone who is single, no kids, works for the State of Texas and pays 383 dollars a month for their HMO, while three years ago it was 11 bucks and a PPO) ETA: Not three years, it was 4 years ago. But still. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/27 "2009-10-22T00:55:39Z")
It’s funny, the conservative certainty that Big Business can do everything right, except for the biggest business in the world, which can’t do anything right. As to the poll the OP is asking about, it’s one poll out of many, and I wouldn’t put excessive weight on it just because it’s the most recent. Support for the public option in polls seems to vary tremendously based on things like who’s conducting it, and precisely how the question is worded. “Do you support the public option for health coverage” will give very different results from “Do you think the government should offer an alternative insurance plan to compete with private companies”, or “Would you switch to a public option if the government were to make one available”, or “Do you think the government should take measures which could drive private insurance companies out of business”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/28 "2009-10-22T02:39:13Z")
[Pelosi champions public option:](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091102/beyerstein) > [@](#): > > A plan to reform healthcare that includes a robust public option would actually cut the deficit, according to preliminary estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). For the purposes of this analysis, a robust public option was defined as one that reimburses doctors at Medicare rates plus five percent. The latest CBO estimate is critical for Democrats because President Barack Obama said he wouldn’t sign a healthcare bill that adds to the deficit. (There’s a double standard at work. Health care has to pay for itself or save money. But as Jo Comerford notes for Democracy Now!, the president has no compunction about bloating the budget with defense spending.) > > As healthcare reform moves into the closed-door, intra-party negotiation phase, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi is emerging as a champion of a public option. Pelosi has always said that she can’t pass a bill without some kind of public plan, though she has wavered about how tough that plan should be on payouts to providers. But according to Brian Beutler of TPMDC, yesterday’s favorable CBO report seems to have settled all that, and Pelosi’s decided to go all in for a public option. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/29 "2009-10-22T13:25:47Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I really fear the worst of both worlds, being required to purchase insurance but not having a public option. Same here,…I recently looked into the costs of buying the same health plan I get through work as an individual policy and was astounded to find it would cost me $56,400.00 per year for family coverage ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/30 "2009-10-25T19:36:34Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The government already knows how to run an efficient public option. An efficient public option like Medicare, which has exceeded its original cost estimates by almost tenfold, is currently running at a deficit, and is scheduled to run out of money altogether in seven years? That efficient public option? > [@](#): > > They can go down, as demonstrated all over the world. Well, then could you cite some of the countries whose health care costs went down after they implemented taxpayer funded health care? Please note that I am asking for what I said - the health care costs went **down** , relative to what they were before the plan was implemented. Not that they increased more slowly, not that they cost less than the US - that they went down, as you claimed happened all over the world. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/31 "2009-10-25T20:12:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It’s funny, the conservative certainty that Big Business can do everything right, except for the biggest business in the world, which can’t do anything right. > > As to the poll the OP is asking about, it’s one poll out of many, and I wouldn’t put excessive weight on it just because it’s the most recent. Support for the public option in polls seems to vary tremendously based on things like who’s conducting it, and precisely how the question is worded. “Do you support the public option for health coverage” will give very different results from “Do you think the government should offer an alternative insurance plan to compete with private companies”, or “Would you switch to a public option if the government were to make one available”, or “Do you think the government should take measures which could drive private insurance companies out of business”. Not only is it one poll out of many…it is also heavily weighted with democrats. Rasmussen and Pew pollls have the issue within the margin of error. [http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/20/wapoabc-poll-uses-skewed-sample-to-show-public-option-support/](http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/20/wapoabc-poll-uses-skewed-sample-to-show-public-option-support/) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/32 "2009-10-25T20:16:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > An efficient public option like Medicare, which has exceeded its original cost estimates by almost tenfold, is currently running at a deficit, and is scheduled to run out of money altogether in seven years? That efficient public option? LBJ forced the initial estimates of the cost to be low in order to get it passed. He was indeed a true politician. None of the other stuff you mention says anything at all about efficiency. Things would be a bit better if Bush has allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices, and if there wasn’t a giant subsidy for the private plans inside Medicare. Medicare doesn’t raise its rates 15% to keep Wall Street happy, and puts its customers above investors. Tsk, tsk. > [@](#): > > Well, then could you cite some of the countries whose health care costs went down after they implemented taxpayer funded health care? Please note that I am asking for what I said - the health care costs went **down** , relative to what they were before the plan was implemented. Not that they increased more slowly, not that they cost less than the US - that they went down, as you claimed happened all over the world. > > Regards, > Shodan Per capita costs with single payer plans are lower than what we have. If we moved to that kind of plan, our costs could moves towards the costs of Europe, and would go down. Things beyond the public option are required for this, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/33 "2009-10-25T20:17:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > An efficient public option like Medicare, which has exceeded its original cost estimates by almost tenfold, is currently running at a deficit, and is scheduled to run out of money altogether in seven years? That efficient public option? Medicare costs less than private health insurance. It is going up slower than private insurance rates. It costs more than they expected because people are living longer. This is why we have to change the current system, both medicare and private health care are unsustainable at present rates of increase. > [@](#): > > Well, then could you cite some of the countries whose health care costs went down after they implemented taxpayer funded health care? Please note that I am asking for what I said - the health care costs went **down** , relative to what they were before the plan was implemented. Not that they increased more slowly, not that they cost less than the US - that they went down, as you claimed happened all over the world. Our prices are higher because we have a spectacularly terrible system that has been flying out of control for decades. Any other country would have to have a similar system to what we have now to save money. Can you point out a country with a similar economy that overspends as much as we do for less service? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/34 "2009-10-25T20:23:05Z")
The Times today reports that insurance costs for small businesses are going up by 15% this year as the insurance companies rush to raise rates before legislation that could cut into their profits. This is double the increase from last year. Small businesses don’t have bargaining power. It appears that Wall Street makes it very clear that companies who don’t jack up rates quickly enough will be punished. It looks like competition does not do much to prevent this. A public option, not driven by the needs of Wall Street, would seem to do a better job. Companies in a public option environment would seem to have to either figure out how to be more efficient to keep the same level of profits, or move to a lower return and a lower stock price. That will hurt them with investors, but the small businesses which will see lower costs should become more profitable, and/or have better paid and happier workers. Sounds like a good deal to me. The free market is working - but it is working today for investors, not for people. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/35 "2009-10-25T21:09:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The Times today reports that insurance costs for small businesses are going up by 15% this year as the insurance companies rush to raise rates before legislation that could cut into their profits. This is double the increase from last year. Small businesses don’t have bargaining power. It appears that Wall Street makes it very clear that companies who don’t jack up rates quickly enough will be punished. > > It looks like competition does not do much to prevent this. A public option, not driven by the needs of Wall Street, would seem to do a better job. Companies in a public option environment would seem to have to either figure out how to be more efficient to keep the same level of profits, or move to a lower return and a lower stock price. That will hurt them with investors, but the small businesses which will see lower costs should become more profitable, and/or have better paid and happier workers. Sounds like a good deal to me. > > The free market is working - but it is working today for investors, not for people. To add to that, IMHO this uncertainty regarding costs (oh, one of your most valued workers has a preexisting condition, your rates will go up!) was reported before as one big reason why small business owners are not hiring as many workers as they would want, the result is that competition with large companies is set already in very unfair terms. I also think that currently small business owners, that are one of the main sources of employment in America, are essentially paralyzed by the uncertainty of what kind of reform we will get, so even if they feel more confident, hiring new workers has been put on hold until they figure out what is coming. Those bastards politicians that decided to slow down the reform process can be blamed also for the lack of new jobs. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/36 "2009-10-26T14:01:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > LBJ forced the initial estimates of the cost to be low in order to get it passed. He was indeed a true politician. Are you implying that Obama is also lying about the costs of his health care initiative? I find that to be quite plausible, but not much of a counter-argument. > [@](#): > > None of the other stuff you mention says anything at all about efficiency. So you believe Medicare is efficiently run, and a good model for health care reform, even though original estimates of its costs were wildly off, it is running at a deficit, and is scheduled to go bankrupt altogether in a few years. You have an interesting definition of efficiency. > [@](#): > > Per capita costs with single payer plans are lower than what we have. If we moved to that kind of plan, our costs could moves towards the costs of Europe, and would go down. For the second time, could you please cite some of the countries whose health care costs went down after they implemented taxpayer funded health care? Please note that I am asking for what I said - the health care costs went down, relative to what they were before the plan was implemented. Not that they increased more slowly, not that they cost less than the US - that they went down, as you claimed happened all over the world. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Our prices are higher because we have a spectacularly terrible system that has been flying out of control for decades. Any other country would have to have a similar system to what we have now to save money. Well, then could you cite some of the countries whose health care costs went down after they implemented taxpayer funded health care? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/37 "2009-10-26T18:13:15Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Not only is it one poll out of many…it is also heavily weighted with democrats. Rasmussen and Pew pollls have the issue within the margin of error. > > [http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/20/wapoabc-poll-uses-skewed-sample-to-show-public-option-support/](http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/20/wapoabc-poll-uses-skewed-sample-to-show-public-option-support/) OTOH, if Democrats are gonna say yes and Republicans are gonna say no, does that mean we could get an accurate pulse of what “America” thinks by just counting up the Democrats and Republicans? Or only polling Independents? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/38 "2009-10-26T18:40:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > An efficient public option like Medicare, which has exceeded its original cost estimates by almost tenfold, is currently running at a deficit, and is scheduled to run out of money altogether in seven years? That efficient public option? Do you have cites for these assertions? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/39 "2009-10-26T19:33:58Z")
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] Do you have cites for these assertions? [/QUOTE] Which ones are you having trouble swallowing? That ‘its original cost estimates by almost tenfold’…I think Shodan is being generous there. Originally, the Medicare Part B premium was $3/month (in 1965 when it was passed). Even given the devaluation of the dollar I’d guess it’s 10 times more expensive today (which it is…a quick Google search shows it’s $96/month). That it’s ‘is currently running at a deficit’…well, yeah. Do you dispute that? Seriously? That it ‘is scheduled to run out of money altogether in seven years’…well, that one is more controversial, I’ll give you that. However, it’s currently projected to cost over $500 billion annually by 2012…which doesn’t bode well. That’s a staggeringly huge amount of money, even for a government program. I think that (alone) rivals defense spending, for instance. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531/40 "2009-10-26T19:52:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Are you implying that Obama is also lying about the costs of his health care initiative? I find that to be quite plausible, but not much of a counter-argument. > So you believe Medicare is efficiently run, and a good model for health care reform, even though original estimates of its costs were wildly off, it is running at a deficit, and is scheduled to go bankrupt altogether in a few years. > > You have an interesting definition of efficiency. I know it must shock you that someone can agree with you, but I was saying that your assertion that the public estimate of Medicare cost when it was passed was way low was correct. But this was not because the CBO screwed up the estimate. It was because LBJ took the accurate estimate, cut it, and advertised it. This has nothing at all to do with efficiency. Neither does it supposedly going bankrupt. Efficiency is a measure of the percentage of the dollars coming in being used for the purpose of the program, paying the medical bills of the aged. If Medicare accurately forecasts it expected expenses, and Republicans in Congress force the Medicare tax to be so low as not to cover this, Medicare will go bankrupt no matter how efficient it is. An efficient company might have a better chance of making money, but making money is not an indicator that you are efficient and vice versa. During the bubble my company was making money hand over fist (real money, real profits) but we we very inefficient. Today we are far more efficient, and we are losing money. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-57-of-americans-now-support-public-option-health-care/514531.md?page=3)