TPMDC

Poll: Even Republican Voters Favor The Public Option

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!


Las Vegas tea party

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

The new CBS/New York Times poll not only shows overwhelming support for the public option -- it shows that a plurality of self-identified Republicans are for it, too.

The poll asked this question: "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

The top-line result is 65% in favor, 26% opposed. Among Democrats only, it's 81%-12%, and independents are at 61%-30%. And among Republican respondents, 47% are in favor, to 42% opposed.

Join the Conversation!

32 comments

Recommend Recommend (5)

September 25, 2009 12:14 PM   

This won't be mentioned at Fox News. The talking heads there would start exploding.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 12:50 PM   

Let's see. House Democrats want it. Senate Democrats are a bit squishy. The American public strongly favors it. So why is there any doubt that something like that should be included?

Oh, never mind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 12:56 PM    in reply to CT Voter

You left out Corporate Democrates, the Dems who really count.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 1:50 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Corruption.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 12:53 PM   

but the insurance companies don't like it. Therefore, it must go!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 1:04 PM   

"The top-line result is 65% in favor, 26% opposed. Among Democrats only, it's 81%-12%, and independents are at 61%-30%. And among Republican respondents, 47% are in favor, to 42% opposed."

Mindboggling.

So, let me get this straight. I've been listening to the MSM preaching o me for a half a year that the PO is some fringy and unpopular lefty idea that is a non-starter and wont' happen.

And yet, it is overwhelmingly popular, even among Republicans?

Obviously, these corrupt Blue Dog crooks have to go, but how do we vote these MSM jackasses out of office?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

September 25, 2009 2:33 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

Start some boycotts: Friends don't let friends watch Fox. Fox rots minds.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 3:23 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

I have heard George Stephanopoulos say, The public Option is dead many times on his show, with nodding agreement from the panel; as well as, I've heard him proclaim it on Good Morning America and other shows.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 9:38 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

The 4th estate has zero accountability. They answer to noone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 1:12 PM   

If we had started with Medicare for All (or at least letting people buy in starting at age 50 with a basic plan for everyone else with subsidies and the Medicaid boost) and the cost-cutting measures in the Baucus Bill we could be done with it by now and it would have been a real improvement while bending the curve downward.

Obama couldn't think big enough and Baucus/Conrad couldn't buck their insurance co patrons. Too bad for all of us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 9:58 PM    in reply to Mimi katz

Obama doesnt make legislation...congress does. if congress decides to create a public option, rather than expand medicare, thats it.

moreover, there is actually a push for an expansion of medicare by some democrats in the house and in the senate, which is supported by former governor howard dean but it isnt getting much traction in the media, or in congress for that matter.

in fact, there are quite a few other expansion of healthcare ideas out there besides the public option, which is why obama keeps saying he likes the public option but is open to other ideas that could work as well or even better.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 26, 2009 6:38 AM    in reply to Mimi katz

Why do some of you continue to insist in talking shit about Obama? He inherited an awful situation and has systematically addressed the most pressing problems in a pragmatic way.

He's not a dictator. He can't wave a magic wand to give you instant gratification. He's up against entrenched special interests that have all kinds of proverbial mechanisms that can derail the best legislation. (ie; swift boating) Those special interests aren't interested in "rational" discussions.

The only way he really has any leverage to do anything is to keep liberals and progressives riled up (not easy to do). Which, if you think about it, he does pretty well--one way or another. I think David Brooks was right on in his analysis back in June 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html

You've been played. And thank god he's on our side. Really.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 1:33 PM   

As Ezra pointed out, Mark Kleiman has a good point:

Medicare, Part E (for “everyone”)
http://www.samefacts.com/2009/09/uncategorized/medicare-part-e-for-everyone/

We really should have framed this a lot better.

The fall back from Single Payer is a Medicare for All / Medicare Part E with an "Opt In" if you want it.

Then the fall back from that would be Medicare Opt-In for 50-64 and Uninsured Under 21.

Then a fall back from that of Medicare Opt-In for 55-64 and Uninsured Under 18 and Uninsured Who Are College Enrolled Taking X Credits a Semester/Quarter.

Then a fall back from there if people scream about the Death Of Medicare to a strong National Public Option that everyone could move into, even those offered Private Insurance if they felt they could get a better deal.

And that being the final fall back position.

But to have those, you needed to start off with a strong Single Payer and Medicare For All Opt-In plan on the table from the start. The White House and Congressional Leadership needed to line up powerful water carriers for Single Payer who talked loudly that they wouldn't budge, while setting up someone to be the voice of reason for the Medicare For All Opt-In. He'd have to be from the ConservaDems, but he's also have to be completely on board the team. When people try to go to the right of him to water it down, he's the voice of reason to the ConveraDems and Blue Dogs that they can't pull those Progressives over to a bill that had nothing, but we probably could get them over to the Medicare Opt-In.

But the White House and Leadership left so much in the holster to fight this war that they started several battles into it, and already on the defensive rather than the offensive.

John

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 2:18 PM    in reply to tosh

You're absolutely right about the framing. If you study the polls on this you'll find they're all over the place, and it's clear that the wording of the question is a HUGE factor. In this particular poll, the inclusion of the phrase "...something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get" makes it a slam dunk. Medicare is very popular. If this had been called "Medicare for all" from the start it would have been passed and signed by now. But it's not too late. Some Senator needs to offer a "Medicare for all" amendment to the current bill. I'd bet even a dozen or so Republicans wouldn't dare to vote against it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 3:34 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

I think it was Edwards that vetted the public option with the idea it makes so much sense and will turn out to be such good value it will gradually drive private policies into the 'gold plated' spectrum of the market. Or maybe that was the objection to his proposed public option, I forget. That's certainly a concern of Judd Gregg's, who characterized a robust public option as 'the camel's nose under the tent' (of single payer). Here's hoping...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 3:45 PM    in reply to Tanjaoui

If not making a profit was such an advantage, Blue Cross/Blue Shield would have driven everyone from the market years ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 4:20 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Yes, true enough. Hopefully the gov't. option will be national in scope and use all its considerable leverage to negotiate lower prices for drugs, procedures, consultations, etc. Also, with the mandate, it looks like this could turn out to be a big risk pool.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 5:09 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

as long as the administrators of the public option aren't paid like the BC/BS CEO, things may improve:

The salary and bonus paid to Cleve L. Killingsworth, chairman and chief executive of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, increased 26 percent last year, to $3.5 million, even though the health insurer's membership declined and its net income fell 49 percent.


Based on previous years' retirement benefits - which Blue Cross-Blue Shield did not report for 2008 - Killingsworth's total pay package was likely about $4.3 million, making him by far the highest paid healthcare executive in Massachusetts.

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/02/28/blue_cross_ceos_pay_rose_26/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 9:35 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

So that's where 20% of my $379/month is going!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 9:11 PM    in reply to tosh

So the question becomes: why didn't the WH and the Dem leadership do it? Why did they fumble so badly?

Remember, this is the President who ran the near-flawless campaign, the consummate politician, the really really smart one, the chess player in any number of dimensions. (And he is all of the above.) That's a hell of a big mistake for a President and a party who made it one of the signature issues of his/their campaign.

An unpleasant possibility, but one that must be considered, is that they really didn't want it to happen. At least not very much.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 2:08 PM   

This single issue is the template for everything wrong with our democracy. If you listen to the MSM you would think that a Public Option was a left wing radical plan and it did not have much of a chance of getting enacted. If you read this poll you realize that it is a plan that is favored by a huge majority of Americans and should be enacted fairly quick and simple.

What is the distortion in this democracy??? CORPORATIONS! The money making interests of a handful of corporations completely and mercilessly kills off the heart of our democracy and replaces it with a vast MSM misinformation campaign, then pays off a majority of our elected representatives to ignore the people and work only in the interest of the corporations.

If this is not painfully obvious and true nothing is. This is a nightmare that we need to wake up from and take back the heart and soul of our freedom. Yet as we breath the right wing Supreme Court is preparing to rule yet again that CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE and have a right to FREE SPEECH that allows them to pour unlimited money into elections and distort the debate even more in the interest of corporate profit and farther away from human needs and common decency.

I am very afraid for our democracy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 3:16 PM    in reply to hollywood

I fear that as well, I'd like to think that the supreme court will not go full out for corporations but rule somewhat more narrowly and relax the rules only a little. I think that is the best we can hope for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 5:52 PM   

"Option" advocates have been comparing the "option" to Medicare from the earliest days of the "option" campaign. The comparision of the original form -- the form Jacob Hacker proposed in papers published in 2001 and 2007 -- with Medicare was appropriate. But in the form in which it was written up in the Senate health committee bill and HR 3200, the comparision is grossly misleading. The scrawny version of the "option" in the Dems' bills will be created by corporations hired by the Secretary of State, the "option" will in fact be multiple insurance programs throughout the country, most of these will not get off the ground and, if they do get started, won't survive. I wrote several papers about this for the blog maintained by Physicians for a National Health Program. Here is one of them:
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/09/13/sullivan-publicoptionin3200unlikemedicare/

Kip Sullivan

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 9:50 PM    in reply to Kip Sullivan

Yikes. This makes it sound like an insidious trick! I think most of the language in my letters to Congressmen and the President make reference to a 'robust and national' public option 'not subject to triggers'. But I didn't consider the possibility they might just subcontract the private option out to private insurers. Christ, they'll wriggle out of anything. Need to be a contract lawyer to write a letter to these...well, they're lawyers, aren't they?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 6:12 PM   

"With Medicare, and justice for ALL"
I can see a new version of the pledge coming soon.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 25, 2009 8:15 PM   

It's all lining up. Please call your Senators before Tuesday. We WILL get a public option through the Senate. Then there will DEFINITELY be a public option in the final bill. Let the Senators know the TeaPartiers and TownHall Thugs are fringe dupes. Real people DO want the government involved in health care because it's the only way health care reform will work. Keep the faith and walk the walk. Call and e-mail.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 26, 2009 7:04 AM   

In my comment above I said the "option" will be administered by corporations hired by the Secretary of State. I meant to say Sec of Dept of Health and Human Services.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 26, 2009 8:42 AM    in reply to Kip Sullivan

To begin, no form of the public option has been decided upon yet. Putting that aside . . .

Once a public plan is erected and conjoined with universal coverage, the system will organically evolve in the right direction. The two key pillars are a public option and full coverage. That provides the foundation. After that, the questions will concern how to manage the system more efficiently and how to lower systemic costs. This will inevitably move us in the right direction. However, without both elements -- a public plan and universal coverage -- the foundation won't exist and the system cannot grow properly. Indeed, a universal mandate without a public option is little more than a magnificent gift to the insurance companies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 26, 2009 1:58 PM    in reply to wbgonne

I hope you're right. If the p.o. is subject to a trigger, it might not happen at all. If it's conceived of regionally, rather than as a national option, that also makes it less effective since the risk pool is much smaller. And if it's regional (State by State), that also gives it less leverage in bargaining with drug companies, hospitals, etc. Finally, if the p.o. is subcontracted out to private companies, its natural advantage of low overhead is lost. Check out Kip Sullivan's link upthread. Instructive but kind of depressing. Wish all this had been framed better. The Administration has been very hands off.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 26, 2009 8:24 PM    in reply to Tanjaoui

Yeah, well, sometime things aren't perfect at the start. And sometimes people aren't who they appear to be, either. Kip Sullivan might even be someone who is hoping for the public option to fail because -- who knows? -- he might be working for the health insurance companies.

We can only operate on the visible and the sensible. Public option NOW!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rwc

user-pic

September 26, 2009 5:29 PM   

The problem is, that except for MSNBC, this poll result is being ignored by the media. Even the NYT's own story on this played up other aspects of the poll, focusing on Obama's still weak approval numbers on what the public perceives to be his health care reform plan.

I am convinced that a good 10-20% of the 45-50% of the public who are skeptical of Obama's plan is related to the fact that they perceive him as weak on the PO and willing to give it up. Yet the meme in the media is that this whole bloc of the public is opposed to Obama's plan for conservative reasons.

Obama and the Dems should be shouting this poll result from the rooftops if they really want a PO in the plan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 27, 2009 2:12 PM   

For Sunday, a message of hope. Don't look at the making of the sausage. It will taste good in the end.

In politics, last week is as good as last year, and last month is pre-historic. As polls continue to show more and more support for a "public option," for "Medicare for Everyone," or for whatever you want to call it, Democrats will fall in line, and ReThugs will be left out in the cold, defending the exclusion of maternity benefits because as old white men, they don't need them.

Call it the Stabinow Effect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on