Close to 80%of Americans Support a Public Option

[TheCouga]

AARP poll shows divide over public option - UPI.com

eight of 10 Americans say they favor a public health insurance option,

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...C-WSJ_Poll.pdf

In any healthcare 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?

Extremely important: 58 percent (41 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)
Quite important: 19 percent (35 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)
Not that important: 7 percent (12 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)
Not at all important: 15 percent (8 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)

Total important: 77 percent (76 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)
Total unimportant: 22 percent (20 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)

So basically, Obama's insurance plan would receive broad support if it passed, and if Americans weren't being lied to by Republicans about what the plan consists of.

[MrDeeds]

Polls Show It's Time for Democrats to Drop Healthcare Reform
August 21, 2009 03:55 PM ET | Peter Roff | Permanent Link | Print
By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

The Democrats have been trying to pass nationalized healthcare ever since Harry S Truman. With Barack Obama, who campaigned on the issue, they won their first presidential mandate since Lyndon Johnson, a sizable majority in the House and a filibusterproof majority in the Senate. And, six months into a period in which they can do anything they want, they still can't seem to get healthcare done.

In the meantime, they are losing the support of the country for change.

The latest ABC News-Washington Post poll of 1,001 U.S. adults found that 50 percent of the country now disapproves of the job President Obama is doing on healthcare, up 6 points from 44 percent who felt that way in July. And a minority, 49 percent, think he will be able to "make significant improvements" in the U.S. healthcare system.

Many people now believe, based on the results of the poll, that it may in fact be better to do nothing at all. A whopping 80 percent of those surveyed said the quality of their healthcare would, at best, stay the same or get worse if the healthcare system is changed.

The electoral implications of the failure to keep it together on healthcare are, for the Democrats, potentially severe. Several recent polls have shown the Republicans now leading on the generic congressional ballot for 2010. The ABC News-Post poll found that healthcare is likely one reason for the shift. Just 23 percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who supports the proposed changes to the health system being developed by Congress and the President—while almost a third, 32 percent, said it would make them more likely to oppose that candidate's election or re-election.

It may be, after almost 50 years, it is time for them to give up on the idea of a European-style government take over the healthcare system. Like Republican hopes to fundamentally alter the Social Security system by adding private accounts to the calculation, the Democrats' intentions for the American healthcare system may just be one bridge too far.

Polls Show It's Time for Democrats to Drop Healthcare Reform - Peter Roff (usnews.com)

[ewsieg]

lol, awesome Couga. Per usual, you only read what you want to. I'm against a public option and would have answered with the majority on this, as I know i'm getting a public option already, just hope I still have a private option as well.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...C-WSJ_Poll.pdf

This link -- that you provided above -- belies your claim.

Originally Posted by The actual answer to the survey question that Couga links to

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

Favor .................................................4 3
Oppose ..............................................47
Not sure ........................................... 10

Second, you quoting the UPI is too rich. When a conservative quotes the Washington Times (also owned by Rev. Moon) , we get treated to this:

Originally Posted by TheCouga

The Washington Times is owned by Reverend Moon. That's all you need to know.

Originally Posted by TheCouga

You're quoting a paper run by Reverend Moon?

Didn't we already have a discussion about the "present" votes in the Illinois Senate?

[sub rosa]

another good reason to distrust polls.

the word "choice" apparently has a big factor in whether or not a person supports the public option in these polls. the huffington post reports that whent the word "choice" is used to present the public option, 77 percent approve. when the word "choice" is left out, only 43 percent approve (which is what you see in the msnbc poll that mark referenced after couga cited it as support for his claim - which after reading it i'm not sure it does).

More than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a "choice" between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage, according to a public opinion poll released on Thursday.

A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.

But the numbers tell another story, as well.

Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."

anyway, here's the huffington post link for those who care:

New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option

[Blue Square Thing]

Dangerous idea that - that you might be able to choose between two systems.

I mean, who the hell would design a system like that and even hope to get away with it... </heavy irony>

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Second, you quoting the UPI is too rich. When a conservative quotes the Washington Times (also owned by Rev. Moon) , we get treated to this:

every source has bias. point out the factual problem if there is one. pointing out that a source is biased is like pointing out the water is wet.

[Chevycola]

The factual issues here is that this Couga guy mis-represents the polls himself. Within the very polls he quotes is evidence to contradict his claims. Who's doing the lying now? Here is appears to be the liberal democrat, not the Repbulicans.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by Chevycola

The factual issues here is that this Couga guy mis-represents the polls himself. Within the very polls he quotes is evidence to contradict his claims. Who's doing the lying now? Here is appears to be the liberal democrat, not the Repbulicans.

Oh, go on then: point it out to me.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

This link -- that you provided above -- belies your claim.

Second, you quoting the UPI is too rich. When a conservative quotes the Washington Times (also owned by Rev. Moon) , we get treated to this:

Originally Posted by sub rosa

anyway, here's the huffington post link for those who care:

New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option

Sorry, this was the link I meant to include. The Survey USA poll.

Mark, UPI can't be biased when they are simply reporting the results of a poll conducted by others. However, I was sloppy and I should have provided the link to the survey itself.

The fact remains that two recent polls show that close to 80% of the public supports a public option when it is properly explained to them -- and not lied about in a Republicanesque fashion.

[ewsieg]

Originally Posted by Blue Square Thing

Oh, go on then: point it out to me.

The point is this poll cited to begin this thread doesn't say what Couga reports it to say.

On Monday night, my child was given the choice of finishing his asparagus or going outside and playing with friends. The kid hates veggies right now but he made the choice to eat the veggies.

Now I guess I could have come over to MTS and posted that 100% of my kids make the responsible choice when it comes to their diets and bragged about how good my kids are. After all, he chose to eat his veggies over playing. It just would have been non-factual to brag about the responsibility of my kid because the whole story would have pointed out that he was given the choice I mentioned above, but told that he wasn't getting a brownie if he didn't eat his asparagus.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by ewsieg

The point is this poll cited to begin this thread doesn't say what Couga reports it to say.

So sticking a duff link in means that he deserves this does it? (my emphasis)

The factual issues here is that this Couga guy mis-represents the polls himself. Within the very polls he quotes is evidence to contradict his claims. Who's doing the lying now? Here is appears to be the liberal democrat, not the Repbulicans.

Y'know, maybe I am better off in General Sports if chucking around what I would consider a pretty personal attack is the defult option over here.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by Blue Square Thing

Dangerous idea that - that you might be able to choose between two systems.

One system can run into debt without a worry. The other if it goes into debt will cease to exist. I don't think there will be "choice" for very long.

You want to actually "reform" health care? Take the one redeeming feature of Obamacare -- that coverage can't be denied for preexisting conditions -- and combine that with increased portability for plans across states and make all insurance premiums tax free. That'll be a damn site better than either what we have or the boondoggle being proposed on Capital Hill.

[Sparks4Ever]

I wonder how people would respond if the question was:

"how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government & subsidized by the American taxpayer, and a private plan for their health insurance."

[TheCouga]

If you further examine the polls, you realize why people oppose Obama's plan -- yet support the public option in such high numbers. Mostly its because people believe the lies the right is telling, i.e. the plan will pay for illegal immigrants, the plan will pay for abortions, the plan means a government takeover, etc.

Elected republicans are lying to the people that elected them, and correcting these lies and misinformation is Obama's biggest hurdle.

[eastside billee]

I think it's really strange that democrats now want a "Public Option" for health care, but when it comes to Social Security they don't want to allow a "Private Option". It would lead me to think that the Government and the Liberals would eventually like to eliminate the "Private Option" when it comes to health care as well.

[Sparks4Ever]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

If you further examine the polls, you realize why people oppose Obama's plan -- yet support the public option in such high numbers. Mostly its because people believe the lies the right is telling, i.e. the plan will pay for illegal immigrants, the plan will pay for abortions, the plan means a government takeover, etc.

Elected republicans are lying to the people that elected them, and correcting these lies and misinformation is Obama's biggest hurdle.

Until the democrats can rally behind a single plan, it's going to be difficult for them to overcome the oppositions propaganda. They have too many competing bills in congress and no "favorite". The GOP can easily pick out any politically undesirable aspect of ANY of the plans and use it against the democrats reform effort. It's fair game because we have no idea which plan will actually make it out of congress (if any).

If Obama could get the democrats to unite behind one bill, it would be easier to fend off some of the accusations because they could just point to that one bill and say "that's not in the bill", but they can't do that right now because there's too many plans out there, so their message is completely incoherent.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by eastside billee

I think it's really strange that democrats now want a "Public Option" for health care, but when it comes to Social Security they don't want to allow a "Private Option". It would lead me to think that the Government and the Liberals would eventually like to eliminate the "Private Option" when it comes to health care as well.

Yeah, Democrats don't support private options for retirement... such as 401Ks and Roths.

Good point.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Sparks4Ever

Until the democrats can rally behind a single plan, it's going to be difficult for them to overcome the oppositions propaganda. They have too many competing bills in congress and no "favorite". The GOP can easily pick out any politically undesirable aspect of ANY of the plans and use it against the democrats reform effort. It's fair game because we have no idea which plan will actually make it out of congress (if any).

If Obama could get the democrats to unite behind one bill, it would be easier to fend off some of the accusations because they could just point to that one bill and say "that's not in the bill", but they can't do that right now because there's too many plans out there, so their message is completely incoherent.

bam, +1, qft, etc....

[belcherboy]

It will be interesting to see who comes out to the 500 town hall meetings that the democrats have planned.

From what I can see, this plan has far less than 80% support. The majority of those I talked to or read about who are currently on a government based health care plan (i.e. medicare/medicade), either indifferent about this plan, or are against it. The ones I've seen who are against it, just don't want more people on the government teet like they are. I can't blame them for being worried about it.

If I had to make a prediction, this is going to fail miserably. Not because there are not enough who support it to give it a real chance, but because the opposition is much more energetic in their fight against it. I think these town hall meetings are going to be dominated, numbers wise, by those opposed to UHC.

I was surprised when it seemed to die a few weeks back, that the Dems resurrected it, but maybe the Dems and Couga have a better grip on what people want than I do! (I usually have no clue!)

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Sparks4Ever

If Obama could get the democrats to unite behind one bill, it would be easier to fend off some of the accusations because they could just point to that one bill and say "that's not in the bill", but they can't do that right now because there's too many plans out there, so their message is completely incoherent.

If the Dems would just take small steps toward UHC, it wouldn't take long at all to get the plan they wanted done (I'm thinking 4-8 years to get it all done). I think they are just taking WAY too be a jump, and the American public is not ready for it.

IMO, if they started with a plan covering everyone under the age of 18 (and maybe even those who are full time college students up until age 22), I think it would be a slam dunk. Than you go after a bigger chunk in a year or two. And so on.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

It will be interesting to see who comes out to the 500 town hall meetings that the democrats have planned.

From what I can see, this plan has far less than 80% support. The majority of those I talked to or read about who are currently on a government based health care plan (i.e. medicare/medicade), either indifferent about this plan, or are against it. The ones I've seen who are against it, just don't want more people on the government teet like they are. I can't blame them for being worried about it.

If I had to make a prediction, this is going to fail miserably. Not because there are not enough who support it to give it a real chance, but because the opposition is much more energetic in their fight against it. I think these town hall meetings are going to be dominated, numbers wise, by those opposed to UHC.

I was surprised when it seemed to die a few weeks back, that the Dems resurrected it, but maybe the Dems and Couga have a better grip on what people want than I do! (I usually have no clue!)

A deeper look behind the poll numbers on "obamacare" suggest that a significant portion of the decline is people on the left (such as me) abandoning a plan that doesn't have a public option, and primarily imposes a mandate on people, forcing them to give money to private insurers - which amounts to nothing more than a handout. If restrictions against "preexisting conditions" qualifications are banned, I'd probably grudgingly support the bill, but I'd still see it as nothing more than the government *forcing* people to have private insurance - and using taxpayer money to subsidize it.

That's not to say that the abandonment of the left is the sole reason for the decline in support, but its definitely part of the drop in poll numbers.

[Sparks4Ever]

Originally Posted by pfife

If restrictions against "preexisting conditions" qualifications are banned, I'd probably grudgingly support the bill,

What does the "preexisting conditions qualifications ban" mean? Does it mean that insurers must offer people with preexisting conditions insurance at the same price as healthy people, or does it mean that they just have to offer them insurance at the price of their choosing? No one ever clarifies this in their news articles, and it's a vital question to have answered.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Sparks4Ever

What does the "preexisting conditions qualifications ban" mean? Does it mean that insurers must offer people with preexisting conditions insurance at the same price as healthy people, or does it mean that they just have to offer them insurance at the price of their choosing? No one ever clarifies their in their news articles, and it's a vital question to have answered.

What I'm thinking about is situations where someone has been paying premiums, and all of the sudden, they're afflicted by a health condition, and their insurance company drops them or refuses to fund the necessary medical procedures.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by pfife

A deeper look behind the poll numbers on "obamacare" suggest that a significant portion of the decline is people on the left (such as me) abandoning a plan that doesn't have a public option, and primarily imposes a mandate on people, forcing them to give money to private insurers - which amounts to nothing more than a handout. If restrictions against "preexisting conditions" qualifications are banned, I'd probably grudgingly support the bill, but I'd still see it as nothing more than the government *forcing* people to have private insurance - and using taxpayer money to subsidize it.

That's not to say that the abandonment of the left is the sole reason for the decline in support, but its definitely part of the drop in poll numbers.

This isn't a shot against Dems, because they have done a good job with the poor in this country, but that is where I see the lack of support. The poor vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and I see this group of people not caring at all about UHC. Many already have it in some form, or they just go to the ER for all their needs, so I see a good number of them as not caring or actually opposing it. The other group are the older folks. Those who are already on Medicare and don't want more people milking that same cow. From what I've seen, a large number are against UHC. The people whom are most passionate are those in the middle class and up. They will be the ones to pay for it and they are the causing the biggest ruckus. There seems to be enough passion among them to shift future elections if they are ignored. IMO, (just my opinion), if the Dems follow through on this, it will be political suicide and I think most of them know it.

We shall see. This is just my take on it, and I am often wrong.

[Sparks4Ever]

Originally Posted by pfife

What I'm thinking about is situations where someone has been paying premiums, and all of the sudden, they're afflicted by a health condition, and their insurance company drops them or refuses to fund the necessary medical procedures.

I thought that was already illegal in most states.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Sparks4Ever

I thought that was already illegal in most states.

I'm no expert, but there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that its happening. You may very well be correct.

Obviously there's a serious issue with mandating people to buy insurance that's ridiculously expensive b/c they have pre-existing conditions. I don't know how to untangle that. Which is probably one of a plethora of reasons I'm not in congress.

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by Sparks4Ever

I wonder how people would respond if the question was:

"how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government & subsidized by the American taxpayer, and a private plan for their health insurance."

it's a good point sparks makes here about responding to the poll. if you phrase it that way, you'll have to let them know whose taxes will go up - the income cutoff, as i understand it, is people making over $350,000 per year.

also a result in the polling that hasn't been mentioned - 82% of the people polled already had some form of private or public "health insurance."

[Sparks4Ever]

Originally Posted by pfife

I'm no expert, but there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that its happening. You may very well be correct.

Obviously there's a serious issue with mandating people to buy insurance that's ridiculously expensive b/c they have pre-existing conditions. I don't know how to untangle that. Which is probably one of a plethora of reasons I'm not in congress.

That's the thing with health care reform, the devil is in the details. This is why a poll on a generic "public option" is practically useless. I could support a public option, but chances are my favored version of a "public option" would not be supported by pfife, TheCouga or some of our other more liberal posters. An actually relevant poll would be if the public supports one of the proposals in congress.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Blue Square Thing

So sticking a duff link in means that he deserves this does it? (my emphasis)



Y'know, maybe I am better off in General Sports if chucking around what I would consider a pretty personal attack is the defult option over here.

Consider the source and ignore it.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

One system can run into debt without a worry. The other if it goes into debt will cease to exist. I don't think there will be "choice" for very long.

Oh, I dunno. I think you'd find systems that can co-exist for a while (say 60-odd years and going strong) if you looked hard enough, innit.

[eastside billee]

Yeah, Democrats don't support private options for retirement... such as 401Ks and Roths.

Good point.

So that's what the Democrats want for health care? The government will TAKE my tax dollars to pay for health care, while I have to PAY MORE money to pay for private insurance because the public one sucks so bad I can't count on it for my needs?

Good point yourself. It does figure.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by eastside billee

So that's what the Democrats want for health care? The government will TAKE my tax dollars to pay for health care, while I have to PAY MORE money to pay for private insurance because the public one sucks so bad I can't count on it for my needs?

Good point yourself. It does figure.

Doesn't that rather depend on whether the public one does, in reality, suck so bad?

I'm sure that there would be the presumption that I would *have* to pay for my own insurance on top of what I pay for through taxes if the scenario you describe is at all logical. I don't think that's anywhere near the case.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by eastside billee

So that's what the Democrats want for health care? The government will TAKE my tax dollars to pay for health care, while I have to PAY MORE money to pay for private insurance because the public one sucks so bad I can't count on it for my needs?

Good point yourself. It does figure.

No, you don't have to pay for a private insurance. You chose to do that if you desire.

[Chevycola]

Originally Posted by pfife

No, you don't have to pay for a private insurance. You chose to do that if you desire.

But you don't have a CHOICE but to pay for the PUBLIC option.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Sparks4Ever

I thought that was already illegal in most states.

It happens all the time. Furthermore, if you're on insurance and you develop a condition and then you lose your job (and insurance), the next insurance company does not have to fully insure you for all of your conditions.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by eastside billee

So that's what the Democrats want for health care? The government will TAKE my tax dollars to pay for health care, while I have to PAY MORE money to pay for private insurance because the public one sucks so bad I can't count on it for my needs?

Good point yourself. It does figure.

So, you will be turning down Medicare then, correct?

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

So, you will be turning down Medicare then, correct?

Socialism sucks....until I need it.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

So, you will be turning down Medicare then, correct?

I don't think anyone will turn down insurance they have already paid for. To me there seems like a big difference between a health insurance that most people spend 40+ years paying into before they use it, as opposed to one they get for free for the first 18 years of their life. Even then, according to the current plan, only those making $350,000 a year or more are going to have to pay for it.

So we have Medicare as an insurance that the individual HAS to pay into to get the benefit, and is often only used for around 20 years of a persons life. As opposed to the new insurance that 90% of the recipients will not have to pay a dime into, and will use for around 80+ years of their life.

[CMRivdog]

I find it very interesting that in every report that I read on the supposed proposals (both blogs and news accounts) that there is any mention of FREE Insurance. Could you provide CREDIBLE LINKS.