TPMDC
New SurveyUSA Poll Shows Support For Public Option Hasn't Dipped
Share
Send to a friend!
After months of public jousting and smears--and an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing support for the public option had tanked--a new SurveyUSA poll shows that the public option still remains broadly popular.
Commissioned by MoveON, the survey asked 1200 adults how important they 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?"
Fifty-eight percent of respondents said "extremely important." Nineteen said "quite important": a total of 77 percent. The rest of respondents said the choice of a public option was not important or weren't sure.
The NBC/WSJ poll asked "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?" Forty-three percent favored, 48 opposed.
The proper conclusion to draw? Perhaps that Americans like the word choice more than they like the government creating things. Or perhaps that they don't follow policy very closely. After all, despite broad support for the choice of a public option in the new SurveyUSA poll, 42 percent said they thought a public option would help ensure that all Americans receive coverage while 46 percent thought it was more likely that the public option would limit patients' access to doctors.
Unsurprisingly, the poll also found that opinions about health care reform are intensely polarized. Though 51 percent said they favored Obama's plan while 43 opposed, the supporters were extremely supportive, while the opponents were more extremely opposed. Seventy-nine percent of supporters "strongly favor" reform, while 86 percent of opponents "strongly oppose" it.
Comments (15) | Join the Conversation!
Follow us!
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Steve LaBonne
August 20, 2009 5:16 PM
Issue polls are ALWAYS all about the wording of the question. They can be designed to "support" whatever the pollster likes. The difference made here by the single word "choice" is a prime example.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cmpnwtr
August 20, 2009 5:21 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
"Choice" is the key. And if the Dems would just modify the bill to emphasize individual choice so everyone gets to choose public or private, that could cause a lot of opposition either way to dissipate. People get angry if they think they are being forced into something they don't like, especially if they believe they are giving up something important.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
August 20, 2009 5:34 PM in reply to cmpnwtr
The title of the bill is "The American Health Choices Act."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
August 20, 2009 5:23 PM
FWIW
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blmack
August 20, 2009 5:36 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
I like this one better. In the SurveyUSA one, the respondent could have been just indicating their desire to keep the private option assuming their will be a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
August 20, 2009 5:47 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
How similar is the public option to medicare in practice?
You know in John Edwards' health care plan, the public option actually WAS medicare-- they were basically allowing people to buy medicare coverage. I didn't think that was a good idea at the time because I thought it would be unpopular. Maybe we should have gone with Edwards' idea. For some reason it seems like if people think of the public option as just part of Medicare they like it a lot more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
August 20, 2009 5:53 PM in reply to mcc
The problem with that idea is that a huge chunk of the current opposition to HRC comes from seniors who are worried about people screwing around with Medicare. It's irrelevant that allowing young people to buy-in to Medicare would increase funds for old people to gobble up, they're convinced adding anyone but more dying seniors would somehow lead to more rationing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
August 20, 2009 5:29 PM
As others have noted, this question could be taken to mean "Assuming there's a public insurance program, is it important that you're given a choice between a public program and a private program?" This seems to be backed up by the fact that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents gave the "extremely important" response in equal numbers.
In other words, it's possible that most conservative respondents were too dumb to understand the question.
The other responses back this up:
By 46% to 42%,a plurality thinks the public option will "limit access to doctors" more than it would "lower costs."
Similarly, support for Obama's plan is only 51%... which is actually a fairly high number compared to recent polls, though this may have to do with the fact that it polls all adults as opposed to just registered or "likely" voters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 20, 2009 5:38 PM
Howard Dean says, everytime anyone inteviews him, that the "genius" of the "Obama plan" was that it gave people a choice. He says that that's the thing about Americans--we luvs us some choice. He says, yeah, single payer would be cheaper and more efficient, but choice is what gets it done for the public.
Which is why I find it distressing how the "choice" part keeps getting buried. Whether because of our doltish media culture or because Team O (and Team D) arre falling down on the messaging job, or both, it isn't getting through.
What's really exaperating is we don't even get "Republicans say the Democrat plan will force you to give up your doctor and restrict you to receiving all of your medical services from drug-addled homeless people while Democrats say their plan will allow you to choose between your private plan or the public plan." Instead we get "Republicans yada yada drug addled homeless yada yada while Democrats say 'nuh-uh.'"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blue8505
August 21, 2009 12:26 AM
The funny thing is though, there will be no choice after a few years of the government run plan. Private companies won't be able to compete with the government using medicare rates that actually undercut hospital costs. Your only option in the end will be the government plan. Then prepare to wait and wait and wait for the government to administer your care. And oh yeah, don't forget about the trillion dollar plus price tag (not free).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
August 21, 2009 12:53 AM in reply to blue8505
A couple of points:
1) The public option won't be using Medicare rates. Medicare does need to be reformed more substantially as well, and I think everyone hopes to see that tackled in the next few years.
2) The trillion dollar price tag is not for the public option. The public option actually reduces the overall price tag of the bill by about 15%. The public program itself will be financed by premiums paid by the participants. The current price tag of the bill currently comes in the form of subsidies that would be used entirely to help low income individuals purchase insurance plans.
3) The public option is expected to mostly absorb the currently uninsured and will not even be available to a huge chunk of the population. This, of course, opens the relevant question of whether the public option will provide sufficient competition to substantially lower costs but that's a debate to be had from another angle.
4) The developed world is full of examples of hybrid systems that have both a comprehensive public option and a lucrative private insurance industry. Given that the American public option will be fairly limited from the start, the evidence seems to suggest that there's little empirical basis for the notion that public and private programs can't coexist and plenty of evidence directly suggesting the opposite.
5) You seem to be confusing health insurance companies with health service providers. Even in single-payer public insurance systems like Canada, private businesses administer your care. The UK is the only country where most health service providers are employed by the government.
In short, your concerns don't seem to be well-founded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
August 21, 2009 2:28 AM in reply to Stroszek
Well, 5 points actually, but I'll spot you the three :)
Thanks for answering the only serious conservative worry out there: Some of them are genuinely afraid that the public option is the "foot in the door" for the dreaded Government Takeover, through use of the USG's market clout, ability to set rates, etc.
Now, I'm for a single payer system, so that doesn't bother me much. I think the private insurers are parasites, myself, who do nothing but suck down health care dollars to pay dividends and lavish executive salaries while working as hard as possible to deny coverage and care. But I suppose I could spot a conservative the argument that there's a role for the private sector in administering health care funding.
But your point (4) is the one to flog, over and over. First of all, NO MAJOR INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, except for the US, lacks some kind of a government health plan available to all. NONE. And second, in the vast majority of those countries, the gummint plan coexists with private plans (UK being the only exception I can think of at the moment). Somehow, in the conservative mind, the US government is more evil and socialist and out to destroy private enterprise than the governments of Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia, ... well, you get the idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blue8505
August 21, 2009 5:35 PM in reply to Stroszek
1) If you listen to most liberal Democrats they want a full single payer system. Pelosi and others want the government option to run at medicare rates. I agree with you about medicare in this country, it does need to be reformed.
2) Since when has the government actually came through with their stated budgets? Do you really think the cost to institute this program is going to save money? The last part of your statement about subsidies for those that need help obtaining insurance is what we should all be striving for (and by those that need help I'm talking about the sick, disabled, single parents and the unemployed that are actively searching for work). Providing these subsidies will be way better than tearing down the entire employer based system.
3) the government plan as proposed by the most liberal (and frightening) democrats will eventually move private insurers out of health care. If you actually look at the bill it states that you can keep your current coverage (assuming that your employer doesn't take it away from you) for 5 years, then you can only keep it if the government deems it acceptable. If this government plan was written in a way that it was only available for those who need it (sick, disabled, single parents, unemployed looking for a job) then I would be for it, but the way that it is currently drafted leads it to become so much more.
4) The hybrid systems of public and private insurance in socialized countries is due to the fact that public plans are so bad that if you want to actually be seen by a doctor in a reasonable amount of time they have to have private supplemental insurance. One of the big problems in our country is that the uninsured go to the ER for basic care. This will not change with a government plan because of our lack of primary care doctors. People will still be going to the ER because of the long waits to see doctors on their government plan. Look at Massachusetts for an example with their mandate that everyone has to have insurance.
5) Canada is a really bad example to give of a health care system to copy. Their government is having a hard time paying their hospitals and most doctors in Canada strongly oppose their system and want reform themselves.
I will be the first to say we need to reform health care in this country to include those that truly can't afford it, but lets get at the real problems and not totally explode our whole health care system. We have the best doctors and technology in the world. How do you think other countries are able to have their socialized system of health care? Because the United States is fronting most of the costs in engineering breakthrough medicines, technologies, and techniques.
Read this essay about health care, it is probably the best thing I've read on the topic. "Health Care Mythology" at www.stumblingontruth.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OldenGoldenDecoy
August 21, 2009 7:43 AM
As the President said yesterday on C-SPAN . . .
He was addressing the Organizing For America Forum on Health Care.
I think that pretty much sums up dealing with the rhetoric that has come from the anti-reform crowd.
And then, speaking of individuals who have no insurance coverage, or coverage is not provided by their employers, or those who have lost coverage from unemployment there was this point the President made:
You can view the 40 minute C-SPAN video and watch and listen for yourself for his explanation here at my TPM Cafe blog. Please recommend it to keep it on the TPM front page so more can watch it.
Don't rely on others when you can verify for yourself what is being said by the President.
Important Note: Don't overlook Obama's call to action... urging all "...supporters to act on their successes to date by engaging the public, dismissing rumors and misinformation, and telling the truth about proposed reforms."
~OGD~
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
August 21, 2009 10:32 AM
I don't think there are very many people out there who really understand what is going on, which is why the polling numbers are so crazy...
The repubs are winning the PR battle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?