Poll: 57% of Americans now support public-option health care

[yorick73]

@Leaper

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?

It may actually be more accurate. My point is that, even assuming a few hardcore types on either side may think differently than the group, polling those who identify with one party over another by such a large amount is sure to skew the results. This is misleading.

[yorick73]

@Lobohan

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.

Medicare also pays out less per procedure than private health insurance. Hospitals actually try to bill those with private insurance more than the procedures cost to make up for their loss on medicare and medicaid payments.

@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. Can you point out a country with a similar economy that overspends as much as we do for less service?

Have you considered that prices may also be higher due to the increased availability of high tech procedures and equipment. I suppose if we stopped developing healthcare equipment and techniques in the 1950’s prices would be much lower today. Also, my definition of insurance is not a plan that covers annual checkups and other normal year-to year expenses. This is the equivalent of having car insurance that pays for rotating your tires and getting an oil change.

[Shodan]

@xtisme

That it ‘is scheduled to run out of money altogether in seven years’…well, that one is more controversial, I’ll give you that.

Not particularly - ["The government revised estimates for the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security on Tuesday, moving up the date when trust funds for the entitlement programs will run out of money.

The Medicare fund for hospital care will be depleted in 2017, two years earlier than government actuaries estimated a year ago."](Social Security, Medicare Face Insolvency Sooner - WSJ).

So actually it is more like seven and a half.

@Voyager

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.

Yes, we all understood this. Similarly, Obama is lying about how much Obamacare will cost, and its impact on the deficit

n a speech before the liberal-oriented Center for American Progress, Romer conceded that the health care bills before Congress were “not going to be enough” to start curbing the federal budget deficit, which was $1.4 trillion in the fiscal year that ended last month.

Cite. It’s an interesting article, which I would recommend.

In terms of the deficit and the impact rising health costs are having, Obama has set the bar low. He has said repeatedly that he will not sign an overhaul that puts the government deeper into the red.

The least expensive bill approved by five different committees of the House and Senate just slips under that bar…

The doctors of the American Medical Association offered their support with the understanding that Congress would repeal a law that automatically cuts reimbursements for doctors who treat Medicare patients.

Congress has waived those automatic cuts for seven years, and they’re only considered a means for dressing up deficit forecasts. But repeal was not in the committee’s bill, and it would cost an estimated $250 billion. (If it had been added to the finance committee bill, the measure would have failed Obama’s test.)

We are so fucked.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sam_Stone]

Getting back to the original poll, this article points out that this particular question is extremely sensitive to wording, because the ‘public option’ is so poorly understood.

As evidence, it offers the latest NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll, which did an interesting thing - it divided up the sample into two groups. Group A was asked the question phrased on way, and group B was asked the question phrased another way. All other methodology was identical.

Group A was asked this question:

In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance––extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?

The answers:

Extremely important  45 
Quite important      27
Not that important    8
Not at all important 15 
Not sure              5 

Looks like big support - 73% think it’s either extremely important or quite important. But note that the question uses loaded terms like ‘choice’, and implies that both plans would be equal and equally available, and it doesn’t talk about any costs.

Then they asked this question:

Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government thatwould compete directly with private health insurance companies?

This question is closer to neutral. It has no loaded terms, and it indicates that the two plans would be in competition with each other. But it doesn’t say anything negative about the government plan, nor does it say anything about costs.

The result this time:

Favor: 48%
Oppose: 42%
Not Sure: 10%

Now suddenly support drops from 73% to 48%. Now imagine what the result would have been if the question had been slightly slanted the other way, such as, “Do you favor a ‘public option’ even if it means your taxes might go up to pay for it?” Or “Do you favor a ‘public option’ even if it means you might have to switch from your own plan to a public plan?”

Is there any doubt that support would drop even further?

Full Poll Here

If you look at other questions, they are equally chaotic. For example, when asked if they trust government to get legislation right, 76% of the respondents said that government only gets it right part of the time or never. Also, when asked if government is doing too much, or not enough, or just about right, 48% of people said it’s doing too much vs 46% who said it’s not doing enough. And yet, a majority think the health care bill should pass.

I think this just highlights how careful we have to be with any poll, both on the left and right. And I think it’s especially true for polls on issues that are highly technical or obscure, where the respondents may know very little, or have only soundbites for philosophy.

[Chronos]

More or less what I said in post 27, though it’s certainly nice to have the concrete example. Of course, the interpretation of the polls depends on which you think is the more fair wording: The public option would be a choice, a point which many people seem to be unaware, so the first phrasing arguably does a better job of gauging what people think about what the public option actually is, rather than what they think of what they think it is.

Incidentally, though, neither of those questions actually get it right, since they’re both talking about health care, which is a completely separate issue from the public option. The public option isn’t about government-run health care, it’s about government-run health coverage.

[Lantern]

Now imagine what the result would have been if the question had been slightly slanted the other way, such as, “Do you favor a ‘public option’ even if it means your taxes might go up to pay for it?” Or “Do you favor a ‘public option’ even if it means you might have to switch from your own plan to a public plan?”

These are ridiculously loaded questions incorporating the talking points of public option opponents. It would be the equivalent of asking “Do you favor the public option if it means greater choice for consumers and lower health care costs?”

Anyway let’s take polls about the public options which use the word “compete”.
CNN did a poll with the following question:

“Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?”

I would say that’s a fairly neutral question which clearly states that the public plan would compete with private plans. The October 16/18 polls shows 61-38 support for the plan which has increased from 55-41 in late August.

Even the NBC poll you cite shows increasing support for the public option 48-42 compared to 43-47 in August. So polling evidence suggests either a majority or close to a majority for the public option as well as increasing support over the last couple of months. (hereis a list of health polling results)

The bottom line: the public option is solidly within the US political mainstream.