
A new Quinnipiac poll finds that a large majority of Americans continue to oppose the health care bill -- and that two policies that have been dropped, the public option or the Medicare buy-in, which were both very popular.
The poll finds 53% of respondents saying they mostly disapprove of the health care plan in Congress, to only 36% who approve. From the party internals, support is at 64%-22% among Democrats, 10%-83% among Republicans, and 30%-58% among independents.
The now-departed public option, however, is supported by a 56%-38% majority, including a 54%-41% margin among independents. Also, the Medicare buy-in for Americans ages 55-64 was supported by 64%-30%, including 57%-36% among independents and even a 50%-44% margin among Republicans.
The poll also finds that only 31% agree both that the President and Congress must take on health care reform now and support the current proposals. Another 28% want reform now but don't support the current proposals (a number spread pretty evenly across all partisan sub-samples), while 36% don't think reform should be taken on now.
From the pollster's analysis: "While the Senate leadership reportedly has the votes to pass a health care overhaul plan this week, outside the Beltway there appears to be weak support, both to what voters understand as the plan, and the need to pass that plan now."
George C
December 22, 2009 9:05 AM
I have a hard time with some of these polls -- what do people think are in the Senate plan that they oppose? Given the distortions, misrepresentations, and downright lies spread about the plan, it's hard to support it. I admire the Dems for simply plowing through this and doing it.
We all knew that the public option and Medicare buy-in were generally popular, but we needed Lieberman and he opted to support Hartford and Aetna instead. Maybe the Repubs and Indies who wanted those options should direct their anger at Snow and Collins for finding reasons not to support the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 22, 2009 11:12 AM in reply to George C
Yes, most people don't even understand the bill right now and asking people to comment is just fililng time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moonbiirdhill
December 22, 2009 11:44 AM in reply to George C
Well, I wish I was happier about this bill passing. At least my husband and I who have both had cancer can no longer be excluded from coverage. That's huge. I mean, what IF I wanted to change jobs someday? Until now, I would have had a hell of a time finding a policy to cover us both, even though we have excellent prognosis now. BUT...the fat cats who lined their pockets with insurance company and drug company lobbyists $$$$ have no interest in any of us. I can't believe that the REPUBLICANS in this country can't see that their representatives have screwed them in that regard. The insurance companies and drug companies are now laughing all the way to the bank. Time to get EVERYONE to finally see that, roll up the shirt sleeves and FIX IT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
December 22, 2009 9:06 AM
but you are missing the key stat ... the public option and medicare buy-in were opposed 100%-0 by the healthcare and pharma industries. don't we know by now who controls our elected officials?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
December 22, 2009 9:24 AM in reply to martis
I don't know about that. Clearly, pharma and healthcare spent tons of money, but even with that the buy-in would have had about 58 or 59 votes (Nelson never committed to it) and the public option would have had 56 or so. I agree that the political system is corrupt to the extent it (thanks to the Supreme Court) still allows unlimited money to be directed to politicians, but on the buy-in Lieberman's vote was the back breaker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
December 22, 2009 11:28 AM in reply to George C
Good point. We keep hearing the insurance companies run everything, but it looks like the Medicare buy-in had a majority of the Senate, and the majority of the House voted for the public option. Without the filibuster, we would have had a strong bill, and I really think conservative ideology and paranoia were even bigger influences than insurance money. That doesn't mean insurance didn't get a lot of what it wanted thanks to ownership of Lieberman and Nelson, but the core problem is a system where owning two senators is enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
December 22, 2009 9:28 AM in reply to martis
It's not just that some are in the pocket of the healthcare and pharma industries. It's that some Democratic senators, like Nelson, represent otherwise Republican constituencies who are very hostile to anything put forth by President Obama and Democrats, no matter how much it may help them. If Nelson had tried to act like Chuck Schumer and come out all gung-ho about single payer or even a robust public option, he would have suffered the same fate in 2012 that Tom Daschle suffered in 2004 for taking a Democratic stance while representing a very Republican state.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Ragin
December 22, 2009 9:57 AM in reply to jdb316
Nelson is going to suffer that same fate anyway, unless he retires.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moonbiirdhill
December 22, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to martis
You BET we know who controls public officials. Lobbyists. Sucks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moonbiirdhill
December 22, 2009 1:20 PM in reply to Moonbiirdhill
Bring in the fear tactics. Immobilize the public in a state of fear. Make them run like Chicken Little, all the while, the lobbyists are pulling the puppet strings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jay Lapidus
December 22, 2009 10:17 AM
To account for the seeming disconnect between majority opposition to health care reform, but majority support for a "public option," consider this post from Nate Silver
about recent Ipsos/McClatchy poll,
It turns out that a significant minority of about 25 percent of the people who opposed the plan -- or about 12 of the overall sample -- did so from the left; they thought the plan didn't go far enough.
Ipsos also asked a parallel question of people who supported the plan: did any of them support the plan because they oppose health care reform and thought that the plan was sufficiently watered-down so as to "keep health care reform from happening"? A small number of people picked this response: about 10 percent of those in favor of the plan, or 3 percent of the entire sample.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/in-polls-much-opposition-to-health-care.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 22, 2009 10:30 AM in reply to Jay Lapidus
You have to be politically dense to eliminate the popular provision (public option) and insist upon the unpopular one (mandate).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
December 22, 2009 10:26 AM
And, as usual, the public is ignored.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
daveincolorado
December 22, 2009 10:41 AM
I think it is telling that this story was buried way down on the page for TPM and not up near the top as a 'noteworthy' news story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
December 22, 2009 11:49 AM in reply to daveincolorado
If every poll was "noteworthy" then random people's opinions about the news becomes more important than the actual facts. If you believe in Asimov's science of psychohistory, then you can get your news from InTrade. I'm not saying this poll isn't interesting or relevant, but there are plenty of news sources that run banner headlines on each new poll, celebrity death or golfer's mistress, that's why I keep coming back to TPM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
December 22, 2009 11:38 AM
The problem with national polls is congressmen care only about their own states and districts. If the poll showed the public option/Medicare extension was popular in Nebraska and Connecticut, that might move Nelson and Lieberman. Show blue dogs a liberal policy is popular in their districts, and they'll get more liberal in a hurry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moonbiirdhill
December 22, 2009 1:30 PM
Here is just one little story about what I learned about drug pricing when I was going through my cancer treatments. I had to take a drug named Neulasta (great drug) to improve my white count. I needed two shots of Neulasta during my treatment. A friend of mine at a different hospital, same insurance company that I had, also needed Neulasta, but she needed a LOT MORE than I did. Now, at my hospital, the hospital was charging 7,000.00 per shot, billed to the Insurance company. At my friend's hospital, the same drug was being billed at 10,000.00 per shot. (Forgot to mention the pretty periwinkle blue designer syringe it comes in). Our insurance company called her and told her that if she wanted to give herSELF the shot, it would save a bunch of money. They said that since it only needs to go in muscle, she could do that if she wanted to. She agreed to try it. After that, her neulasta cost 2,000.00 per injection vs. the previous 10,000.00 per injection. So, that extra 8,000.00 saved ... you can surely understand why it was 8,000.00 less, can't you? I mean, think of the footsteps the nurse saved since she did not have to walk to the drug closet and get that shot, walk back, roll up her patient's sleeve, swab her arm with alcohol, and stick it in her arm. Also, the hospital saved on the price of medical waste since no syringe needed to go in their trash. Obviously worth 8,000.00 more to have the injection given by a nurse, don't you think? Sheesh. This is just one tiny story in the labyrinth of greed. Oh, I forgot to mention. Those people with $$ who come here from Mexico paid 15,000.00 for their injection. And this is a democratic country that cares for it's citizens. Greed is evil.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
todd432
December 23, 2009 6:10 AM
Obama and the dems sold out to big insurance on the public option. It's 3rd party time in 2010 for me, I will not forget or be swayed by events that transpire after this health care mess is over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moonbiirdhill
December 23, 2009 1:58 PM in reply to todd432
I'm also soooooo disappointed and disgusted. All I can smell is big money and greed. Of course, having HAD cancer, I am greatful to have the provision to not be turned down if I lost this job or this insurance. That's huge. What a relief to not have to feel like a pariah anymore. Yes, there are other pluses of this plan, but it needs a lot of work to put the people before the greed. I mean, there should be a limit to how damn greedy they can be!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?