Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Favor Universal Health Care -- Until Taxes Are Mentioned
A new CNN poll shows just how tricky the debate over health care really is. People are all for expanded coverage and greater government involvement -- right up until they have to face the tradeoffs.
"In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?" Americans favor government intervention in the health system by 69%-29%.
"In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the health care you and your family receive in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?" When it involves their own care and their families, approval is still high, but a bit lower: 63%-36%.
"Do you think the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans, or don't you think so?" Americans favor guaranteed health care for all, by a margin of 62%-38%.
Now here's where it gets really tricky: "Would you prefer a health care reform plan that raises taxes in order to provide health insurance to all Americans, or a plan that does not provide health insurance to all Americans but keeps taxes at current levels?" It is now a 47%-47% tie, thanks to the threat of tax increases.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
This is why we have to take the incremental step of having a public OPTION before we get to single payer.
People are afraid that they won't be able to see their doctors or that healthcare will be rationed and other BS like that. But if we have the public option, people will see that it works great and will opt for it.
That's why health insurance companies are scared witless. If public healthcare was so bad, they'd sit back and let it happen.
May 29, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The insurance companies "sat back" and let Social
Security happen [actually there wasn't a darn thing
they could have done about it]. Now you get less
than 1% return on your investment over your
lifetime and if you die you get nothing. You would
do better in an FDIC insured savings bank. Any
insurance company could have designed a better plan
and with government help could have mandated all
people be covered. The result would have been
higher yields and something in your inheritance.
Instead we have a pay as you go system that will
require ever increasing taxes to pay the benefits
promised. I cannot imagine Government run Health
care being any different.
Socialized medicine has not worked anywhere in the
world to the satisfaction of the patients.
Ultimately, if we continue down the socialized
medicine path, you will be standing in line waiting
for your tests like people in Canada.
At that point, only the rich will be able to have
expensive treatments in a timely fashion.
Socialized medicine will make most of the decisions
about who gets help and who doesn't and you might
wait 6 months or longer to find out WHETHER you
have cancer.
Health care rationing will happen. It already
happens in the Oregon Health care plan:
http://www.allamericanblogger.com/3377/oregon-woman-denied-cancer-treatment-by-government-offered-suicide-instead/.
Current health system needs help, but not the way
Harry, Tom, and Nancy want to do it. Big government
bureaucracy will make health care in the
US a disaster.
June 2, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last question sort of implies that health insurance plans remain the sames.
Taxes wouldn't go up just to cover everyone. The plans would also be better.
As usual, it depends on how you phrase things. I've see other polls that suggest a clear majority would be willing to pay more taxes to insure the uninsured as long as the plans are better for everyone.
May 29, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they called it a "paying a premium" instead of "paying a tax," they'd get a very different result.
One thing the Republicans have succeeded in doing over the last thirty years is turn the word "tax" from one that draws a wry wince into on that induces in roughly the same emotional response as the word "ghonorrea."
"Would you be willing to get a dose of the clap to insure universal health care?"
They'd probably get about the same split.
May 29, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question of tax versus premium is where the confusion seems to lie. What would the difference be? For someone who now pays no fee for their coverage, such as a wholly employer paid plan, it's a red flag. OTOH, if you now pay for your insurance yourself, or pay a part of your coverage through payroll deduction, it becomes a question of which is more costly, the deduction or the tax? Never mind the question of which would be the better plan.
May 30, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't insurance premiums paid to 'for profit insurance companies' be replaced by taxes?
How would the taxes paid compare to the insurance premiums paid?
I don't see how a polling company would not work the above questions into the poll.
May 29, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 29, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is a fairly crucial point that an increase in taxes is offset by the removal of insurance premiums and a reduction in healthcare payments (and will likely end up less overall.)
One would hope that this would be implicitly understood by Americans, but evidence seems to dispute that.
May 29, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karl,
Sad to say;
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. (paraphrase)
HL Mencken
May 30, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they could try framing it as an extension of Medicare that would cover their entire family regardless of age or employment. But that would be too easy. Of course, it's better to ask if people would just love to pay more taxes but not get anything in return.
May 29, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe until recently that Americans favored universal coverage even if it raised their taxes; this new poll may be a reflection of the recession. And 47-47 ain't bad -- remember, that's half the people saying, yeah, this is the right thing to do, go ahead and raise my taxes.
May 29, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are uninsured and does not have insurance, you should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - John Mayer, California
May 30, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
mmmmmm...spam!
May 31, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, on the surface, universal healthcare sounds great...to everyone who does not know the repercussions of what that would mean. Obama may be skipping around the issue of increased taxes due to this, but even if it's not funded by your income tax initially, it will eventually trickle down and hit everyone.
That's all we need, pay for service that is going to lead us to long wait times (days, weeks, months, not hours) and rationing of healthcare. Do we really want the government to be in charge of healthcare? Look what's happened to USPS.
It's completely irresponsible of the President and Congress to ignore history and other countries that have gone to that system. Ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it.
June 2, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The poll might be more credible if you also ask if people want universal health care AND lower quality health care. As the government gets more and more involved, quality disappears. There are few things our government does well -- if you disagree, give me a list of excellently run government organizations. Congress running the health system scares me. Will we all be getting in line in Canada to get our health care?
Why do people want government run health care? Does CNN only poll people who do NOT have health insurance? Those that have health insurance are happy with it (results of another poll).
June 2, 2009 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm... Health Care for ALL Americans is Simple!
1) MERGE Medicare, Medicaid and CHIPS into one single "Income Based" system for children, poor and elderly citizens.
2) REQUIRE insurance companies to provide the same basic coverage for EVERY Uninsured citizen, regardless of health status, at
affordable rates.
3) ALLOW insurance companies to "Profit" by offering additional benefits and options to those who qualify and are willing to pay the
difference.
As for Funding…
1) Changing from an "Emergency Treatment" to a "Preventive Care" system will save local communities billions, maybe even trillions of
taxpayer dollars!
2) Consolidating and utilizing existing systems will expedite the process and make administration more efficient and cost effective!
3) Small business will be able to compete globally and hire additional taxpaying employees!
4) Wealthy seniors will pay their fair share!
The Tremendous Burden on Future Generations will be Greatly Reduced!
June 2, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't provide the same coverage for everyone regardless of health status and make it affordable at the same time. If you have government-run healthcare the only way that you could keep costs down is to make it mandatory for all citizens. This goes against everything fundamental to freedom in our country. The obvious problem would be that people would not pay into the system, and then wait until they are sick to sign up. If the government cannot deny them coverage based on pre-conditions there is an obvious funding problem and high potential for abuse of the system. Not to mention the fact that some people will want voluntary procedures like abortion and plastic surgery covered. Can't you see the problems coming? Because of this, a plan like this is will likely raise tax rates to 40-50% for the average citizen and return crappy healthcare in return. No thank you.
July 17, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink