Clear majority now back public option: poll

By John Byrne
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 -- 7:48 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

3704917769 c7547092f9 Clear majority now back public option: pollA "clear majority" of Americans now support a government-run public insurance plan as a competitor to private insurance companies, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published Tuesday.

The findings show that public support for a public option is growing. Over the last two months, the public option's support has risen from 52 to 57 percent, the poll says.

"Overall, 45 percent of Americans favor the broad outlines of the proposals now moving in Congress, while 48 percent are opposed, about the same division that existed in August, at the height of angry town hall meetings over health-care reform," the Post writes. "Seven in 10 Democrats back the plan, while almost nine in 10 Republicans oppose it.

Just 37% said they wanted a bipartisan plan without a public option. Independents favor a public option even if it doesn't have support from congressional Republicans (none have backed a government-run insurance plan to date).

In the Senate, debate over the public option is fierce. The Senate Health and Labor Committee approved a version of the legislation which included a provision for a government insurance competitor, while the Senate Finance Committee did not.

Story continues below...

Compromise options appear to be on the table. In one plan, the public option would serve as a fallback measure -- the "trigger plan" -- whereby if private insurers didn't increase competition or lower prices by a certain amount, the government option would automatically kick in. Another plan would allow states to opt out of a government-run insurance plan.

In either case, most Americans wouldn't be able to take advantage of the public option. Those with employer-provided healthcare would be ineligible; primarily the option would be focused on individuals who are forced to buy insurance on the open market.

Health insurers are staunchly opposed, as are Republicans. Republican leaders say opening the door to the public option would eventually lead to government takeover of healthcare and drive private insurers out of business.

The poll also finds strong opposition to a Democratic plan to tax high-cost insurance plans: "Sixty-one percent oppose the idea, while 35 percent favor it."

"Nearly seven in 10 say they think that any health-care measure would increase the federal budget deficit, a possible concern for Obama," it also says. "But nearly half of those who see the legislation as growing the deficit also say the increase would be 'worth it.'"

On the private insurer front, UnitedHealth announced Tuesday that their profits for the third quarter had risen 13 percent over the previous year, despite a shrinking coverage pool caused by countrywide layoffs. UnitedHealth and Wellpoint, a Blue Cross servicer, dominate the private health insurance market.

More details on the poll are available here.

Share this article:
  • Print this article!
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...
  • rickpetes
    "Republican leaders say opening the door to the public option would eventually lead to government takeover of healthcare and drive private insurers out of business."

    And republicans don't want to see these parasitic corporations (they ADD NOTHING of value to healthcare) go away. Republicans: just dumb or corrupt, or dumb and corrupt?
  • DownriverDem
    the leaders are not dumb, but they are corrupt

    the followers (base) are dumb
  • Dan
    I would guess the 48% includes those who feel the current plans do not go far enough (single payer) as well those opposed to ANY healthcare reform. The poll should have asked why they were opposed.
  • DownriverDem
    I do not believe that 48% oppose the plans moving through congress.

    The American people spoke loud and clear last November.

    It's time for those who are in the way to get out of the way. This has been a long time coming and time is of the essence. Americans are dying because of a lack of health insurance.
  • texasaggie
    I think that yes, indeed, that many oppose the plans going through Congress mainly because the plans going through Congress don't do enough for the average person and are tipped in favor of the insurance industry. Dan made a comment after yours that says pretty much what the situation is.
  • DownriverDem
    I can see that.

    We also must look back (many of us were not here or too young) when the Medicare and Social Security debates were going on. Everything didn't get done in the first go round. and was added to fix what needed to be done.

    The same needs to be done with the health care reform bill. We just need to pass it with a public option and then we can change after we have a chance to see it in action.
  • tvfreezone
    "Republican leaders say opening the door to the public option would eventually lead to government takeover of healthcare and drive private insurers out of business."

    Yes, that is exactly what will happen, thank you Pres. Obama. Who needs the rapacious, greedy insurance companies? No one! The government can and will provide excellent coverage for far less money. Let's eliminate the profit hungry middle men and save billions a year. The contention that government run programs are inefficient is a Republican lie. My Medicare program is excellent, thank you.
  • jwkessler
    "Republican leaders say opening the door to the public option would eventually lead to government takeover of healthcare and drive private insurers out of business."

    Companies have responded to changing market conditions by going out of business - or drastically changing their business model - throughout history. There used to be big manufacturers who specialized in the production of steam locomotives for the railroad industry. When diesels came along every one of these companies dies or evolved into something else. There was no great clamor for government to step in and ban the new technology. Recently glass picture tubes for TV sets were replaced with flat panels. The companies that made the glass tubes either went out of business or began making something else.

    So why should insurance companies be given special protections when faced with a major change in their business model?
  • darker
    it's important for CORPORATE HEALTH INSURANCE to have
    COMPETITION! otherwise the rates won't come down and continue
    to go sky high during these bad economic times.

    CORP. managers are USED TO HUGE BONUSES and they want to
    keep getting them on your tab and your back.

    Support a gov't health insur. option.
  • Disenfranchised
    Savantster,

    I've come to the conclusion that you have an obsession with being 'correct' and your density is a waste of time. You chime in on every issue with a detailed critique as if in a court case but cannot see the forest for the trees in many posts.

    "Now you're just being lazy and disingenuous. The "majority" only supported the illegal invasion of Iraq because they were lied to over and over"

    Yes Savantster, that's part of my F***ING point. Lies and corruption in turn make 'we the people' fallible in our decision making. Couple that with the fact that 85% of our nation is politically and educationally INCAPABLE of making an informed decision, either based on rhetoric they hear, formed public opinion, or social engineering rants....you have a DUPED COUNTRY.

    Jesus Christ almighty Savantster

    "It is a not for profit government "insurance" plan that runs much like Medicare does. You pay premiums and deductibles and your doctor submits the bill to your "insurance company" and they pay the bill. The term "public" means "government run", option means option to traditional for-profit insurance companies."

    it's very straight forward [in concept]."

    Yes, straight forward in concept...just like the Iraq War, just like the Patriot Act, just like torture, just like any addendum to any friggin sub clause of any law of any thing ever written by our geniuses in Washington.

    I for one don't pretend to know the ins and outs of this legislation like you claim to. I guess you have read the entire text yourself. Either that or you have detailed expertise in the field.

    Now here's my little argument from authority...my family is in the medical field, in fact some have RUN hospitals and are PHDs and health care pros. Even they either 1) don't understand how it will work ( LOGISTICALLY) or 2) don't trust it and are gaining a consensus that it is a bad idea.

    You however, seem to get it all?

    And my points about the Iraq War on the phony "War on Terror" are very appropriate, don't pretend you're speaking to some Johnny come lately political dope.

    Consensus does not always equal a logical decision. But hey, if the 'majority rules' I guess they (we) deserve it huh?

    "Democracy" is awesome
  • Disenfranchised
    Exactly what is 'the public option'? I still have yet to understand what it is...can't be for it or against it .

    I'll wait till the thieves on the Hill decide to put it all in "Engrish".
  • Savantster
    .
    If you don't understand what it is [meant to be], then you're not paying attention or you're trying to be cute.

    It is a not for profit government "insurance" plan that runs much like Medicare does. You pay premiums and deductibles and your doctor submits the bill to your "insurance company" and they pay the bill. The term "public" means "government run", option means option to traditional for-profit insurance companies.

    it's very straight forward [in concept].
  • Gabor
    When the government takes health care over the quality will go down and the price will go up. If the free market can provide affordable cars,food,shelter, etc. then it can provide affordable health care. Get government out of it, all they can do is make things worse. I pay $60 a month for catastrophic health insurance. I have a $2500 deductible and a $2 mil max. This is what every person should have. You don't need your health insurance to cover every little thing, after all, you don't use your car insurance to cover the cost of your gas do you?
  • texasaggie
    If the free market could do what you claim, then you would have an argument. But the present situation shows beyond doubt that the "free market" can't provide affordable cars, food, shelter, or medical insurance to a very large segment of America.

    What the "free market" has given us in terms of affordable shelter is the subprime mortgage mess. Food is somewhat affordable because of government subsidies to the producers of the major crops. Cars are not affordable, I'm sorry.

    And health insurance is a joke. It only supplies support if you don't need it. People who actually do need medical insurance are either denied coverage when they apply (do you have any idea what it would cost a diabetic to get coverage?) or have it yanked out from underneath them when they need it most.

    Your post represents the attitude of those who regard working people as some sort of low born scum who should be grateful for the privilege of keeping their betters in luxuries.
  • Savantster
    .
    "When the government takes health care over the quality will go down and the price will go up."

    cite examples of that happening.

    "If the free market can provide affordable cars,food,shelter, etc. then it can provide affordable health care. "

    You don't read much, do you. Most of your food is subsidized which is why it's affordable. You pay taxes that go to big farms to make corn that goes into everything you eat.. it's bad for you, but it's cheap because the cost is hidden. It's a racket.

    Another major problem with this entire debate is no one is talking bout what our society expects from "health care". You say you have "catastrophic coverage", does that include checkups that find diseases before they become expensive? Does that cover treating diseases and illnesses that aren't catastrophic to start, but can become that way if left untreated (leaving cuts open can lead to amputations, for example)? And $2,500 deductible (per year, I'm guessing) can be a LOT of money for some people.. in any given year, you're paying up to $3,300 out of pocket, that's 1/3 of some people's incomes.. Seems a lot if they slip on the sidewalk and break a leg or arm that needs corrective surgery, don't you think? (well, you're a "free marketer", so clearly you don't think.. but).

    You're right, you don't use your car insurance for gas, but your health isn't optional like your car is. And you can chose a fuel efficient car, you can't pick and chose what diseases find you.

    Elective surgery and pregnancies are about the only corollary you can make to other insurances. The question becomes, should we include pregnancies in standard insurance? that's pretty expensive. You chose to get pregnant and have a kid, perhaps you should only do it if you can afford it? .. but, then, that brings out an entirely different conversation, doesn't it.

    The solution, then, it seems, is that "all health related" issues might need a new way of being looked at, especially given that we're supposedly a "civilized" society. The problem, of course, is that we also want to be able to exploit and abuse everyone around us for "profits", and no one has really done a decent job of explaining why that is such a great way to exist. Especially in a modern world where we don't need to live like we do, but instead could have the entire planet living decent lives with no [real] wants.

    It's time to start moving into the future. To do that, we must leave the past where the planet was huge and there was enough "free land" for everyone just to roam off and claim resources, then trade them for other things they _needed_ to live. It's time to understand that the world has changed, and we must as well.

    www.thevenusproject.com

    We're living an unsustainable paradigm and it's one that is hurting a lot of people for no real good reason. Let's change it.
  • nader paul kucinich gravel
    Wall Street
    Glorify Israel
    Anti 9/11 Truth

    bbc beck blitzer bolton breitbart coulter
    cspan drudge gutfeld hannity huckabee imus
    ingraham krauthammer kristol limbaugh malkin
    north oreilly rivera rove scarborough stossel susteren

    Gotta Serve Somebody by Bob Dylan
  • Disenfranchised
    Oh also, in 2002, after 9/11, the 'majority' also supported the illegal invasion of Iraq and the unproven and useless attack on Afghanistan....just to remind people about the term 'majority'...

    Mobs are the majority too, majority is not = to logic.

    I know sitting here at my computer the 'majority' of Americans are dimwitted zombies. So when I hear something has a majority of support, I usually pull out my skeptic meter.
  • Savantster
    .
    Now you're just being lazy and disingenuous. The "majority" only supported the illegal invasion of Iraq because they were lied to over and over. That does not mean the public is never capable of making a group decision..

    to use one of your idioms... correlation is not = to causation.
  • mld678
    This is an emotional issue for many Americans. This so-called “public option” in Government run health care presents serious challenges for us. As Consumers we should be able to compare the cost and quality of health care services. How much is a specific surgery at one hospital, as compared with another? http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/media/
  • honchocho
    Now there is a non biased source for a poll. That is almost as reliable as listening to Obermann or Hannity. Any poll can be manipulated. Just because some of the people want it and a couple of very liberal sources claim a percentage, doesn't make it so. The sampling was taken over a period of 4 days with 1,004 people asked the questions. I bet I could get an almost 90% rejection rate by selecting the right areas to call and wording the questions right.

    This is the same scam that is being pulled with the economy. Those providing the info hope that by spinning a recovery, less job loss or in this case a poll favoring a public health care plan will some how push the public to go along with it. Those that release the info are more important then those that took the poll, just like those who count the votes are more important then those who cast them.

    I am not saying people don't want a better system for health care, but do they really want to sign on to a plan that the details have yet to be finalized? Would any sound minded person put their signature on a contract without reading it or one that wasn't finished? Yet that is what this poll is claiming.

    I am just not buying it.

    Too many unknowns and too many things about the proposed legislation can change. After all the deception, broken promises, backroom deals, a person would have to be a fool to think that they can trust congress.
blog comments powered by Disqus