COMMENTS: 27
Clear Majority Now Backs the Public Option, and the Numbers Are Growing
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.
A "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.
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.
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kip sullivan on Oct 21, 2009 4:34 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kip Sullivan
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Self-serving post
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Self-serving post
Posted by: kip sullivan
» RE: Self-serving post
Posted by: Crazy H
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Oct 21, 2009 5:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Senate version of the health care reform bill has already compromised the "robust-ness" out of reform. That means, the compromise between the house and senate bill will be watered-down to, maybe a few million people qualifying for the public plan, if they are unemployed or buying the plan themselves. That means the american people lose, and the insurance companies win.
We can blame Obama for the failure of passing reform, since he began his negotiations for reform in a compromised position, instead of pushing for a single-payer system.
The only bright side is , if Democrats survive Obama's bi-partisanship rituals, and get re-elected, they'll be back at the table re-negotiating a new health care reform bill in ten years, when HC costs have inflated another 10%.
Peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Was that a typo?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: We can blame Obama for the failure of passing reform
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: We can blame Obama & Republicans for the failure of passing reform
Posted by: kettleblack
» RE: Don't expect a "robust" public option
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Oct 21, 2009 7:58 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The strong voices and moral outrage of Kucinich, Weiner and Grayson may help?
Also more marching and civil disobediance (by the the progressive public(us!)WITH MORE MEDIA COVERAGE might help.
Progressives - DON'T GIVE UP!
This is not yet over!
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I AM COUNTING ON..... Kucinich?!
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: I AM COUNTING ON.....
Posted by: Frugalvoter
» RE: I AM COUNTING ON..... Nonsense!
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kettleblack on Oct 21, 2009 8:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there any question about who is winning the debate?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vertical on Oct 21, 2009 9:20 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Consequences
Posted by: popsicle67
» RE: Consequences
Posted by: willymack
» RE: Consequences
Posted by: Frugalvoter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jethro2112 on Oct 21, 2009 9:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anybody see the problem here?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: So Where's the Problem if
Posted by: acmwallace
» RE: So Where's the Problem if
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Oct 21, 2009 11:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Oct 21, 2009 12:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having said that, I will suggest three actions that anyone can take that will scare the Congress into representing the people rather than the insurance companies.
If voters, Democrat and Republican, who are in favor of the public option would merely change their voter registration from a party to independent, I'd bet that the public option would be a shoo-in in short order.
The three actions to take are:
One; Reregister as an independent
Two; e-mail ten of your friends and tell them why they should control Congress.
Three; Ask them to switch their registration immediately, and to pass the message along to ten of their friends.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kip sullivan on Oct 21, 2009 2:51 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Byrne's statement that 57% of Americans support "a public option" is misleading because it is based on a question from a poll (the ABC/WashPo poll) which failed to ask the right question. The question to which 57% replied in the affirmative asked about an "option" available to all Americans. But that's not the "option" under discussion in Congress. The tiny "options" proposed by the Democrats would be available to perhaps 30 million people, or about one in ten of us.
Why would any pollster ask a question about a proposal that isn't under consideration in Congress, and isn't even written up in bill form in Congress, especially when that question might easily be confused with a question about a proposal that is actually being debated? I addressed that issue in an article posted Monday entitled "'Public option' bait-and-switch fools pollsters"
(linked text).
I argued that pollsters allowed themselves to be fooled by the bait-and-switch campaign waged by the "option" movement's leaders. The "option" movement originally proposed a public program that would be available to ALL Americans and, partly for that reason, would be huge (it would, according to several estimates, insure half the non-elderly population). When Democrats wrote up their bills earlier this year, they watered the original version of the "option" down to almost nothing. But neither the "option" movement's leaders nor Democrats warned the public about the switch (linked text).
You might think the big-name polling firms would have had the smarts to avoid being suckered by the bait-and-switch. They didn't. Twenty-two of the 23 polls I looked at asked questions about the "bait." Only one asked about the actual mouse version of the "option" that is now the subject of furious (and very misinformed)debate across the country, and that was only after asking about the "bait" version.
My point here and in my article was not that the public doesn't support the mouse version of the "option." It's possible a majority does support the mouse version. My point is: The bait-and-switch campaign has been very successful with pollsters, and if it has been successful with pollsters, I bet it has been very successful with the public. If I'm correct about this -- if the public has been seriously misled by the bait-and-switch campaign for the "option" -- Democrats may be in for trouble. If Democrats pass the mouse version of the "option" when the public was expecting a large, "Medicare-like" version, the public might be a tad peeved.
Kip
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 21, 2009 10:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Priam1 on Oct 21, 2009 10:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Newstime on Oct 22, 2009 2:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans can be taken out of the equation entirely.
When the public spotlight is shined more directly on these two Democrats, accompanied by public pressure for action, we can expect, relative to the judicial-misconduct complaint filed against Ms. Aiken (Rule 11 d), a concession to the uninsured taxpayers represented in the complaint, a Constitutional ruling decreeing Medicare for All.
And President Barack Obama, as a constitutional lawyer, can also legitimately convey to her that she has made a mistake that she needs to correct. But, instead, 81 days and counting since he was reminded by Memo sent to the White House through Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ E-mail address, Mr. Obama has still failed to employ this Constitutional TRUMP CARD.
That's where public pressure comes in, to end the nonsense of Democrats continuing to raise campaign funds on the promise of bringing in health-coverage expansion.
81 Days and Counting since President Obama was offered solution to end health-care impasse!
Uninsured taxpayers lose another 81 days of potential health-care coverage!
By Charles H. Savage/Editorial Columnist
Continental Features/
Continental News Service, Inc.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kip sullivan on Oct 21, 2009 4:34 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kip Sullivan
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Self-serving post
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Self-serving post
Posted by: kip sullivan
» RE: Self-serving post
Posted by: Crazy H
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Oct 21, 2009 5:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Senate version of the health care reform bill has already compromised the "robust-ness" out of reform. That means, the compromise between the house and senate bill will be watered-down to, maybe a few million people qualifying for the public plan, if they are unemployed or buying the plan themselves. That means the american people lose, and the insurance companies win.
We can blame Obama for the failure of passing reform, since he began his negotiations for reform in a compromised position, instead of pushing for a single-payer system.
The only bright side is , if Democrats survive Obama's bi-partisanship rituals, and get re-elected, they'll be back at the table re-negotiating a new health care reform bill in ten years, when HC costs have inflated another 10%.
Peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Was that a typo?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: We can blame Obama for the failure of passing reform
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: We can blame Obama & Republicans for the failure of passing reform
Posted by: kettleblack
» RE: Don't expect a "robust" public option
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Oct 21, 2009 7:58 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The strong voices and moral outrage of Kucinich, Weiner and Grayson may help?
Also more marching and civil disobediance (by the the progressive public(us!)WITH MORE MEDIA COVERAGE might help.
Progressives - DON'T GIVE UP!
This is not yet over!
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I AM COUNTING ON..... Kucinich?!
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: I AM COUNTING ON.....
Posted by: Frugalvoter
» RE: I AM COUNTING ON..... Nonsense!
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kettleblack on Oct 21, 2009 8:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there any question about who is winning the debate?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vertical on Oct 21, 2009 9:20 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Consequences
Posted by: popsicle67
» RE: Consequences
Posted by: willymack
» RE: Consequences
Posted by: Frugalvoter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jethro2112 on Oct 21, 2009 9:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anybody see the problem here?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: So Where's the Problem if
Posted by: acmwallace
» RE: So Where's the Problem if
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Oct 21, 2009 11:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Oct 21, 2009 12:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having said that, I will suggest three actions that anyone can take that will scare the Congress into representing the people rather than the insurance companies.
If voters, Democrat and Republican, who are in favor of the public option would merely change their voter registration from a party to independent, I'd bet that the public option would be a shoo-in in short order.
The three actions to take are:
One; Reregister as an independent
Two; e-mail ten of your friends and tell them why they should control Congress.
Three; Ask them to switch their registration immediately, and to pass the message along to ten of their friends.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kip sullivan on Oct 21, 2009 2:51 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Byrne's statement that 57% of Americans support "a public option" is misleading because it is based on a question from a poll (the ABC/WashPo poll) which failed to ask the right question. The question to which 57% replied in the affirmative asked about an "option" available to all Americans. But that's not the "option" under discussion in Congress. The tiny "options" proposed by the Democrats would be available to perhaps 30 million people, or about one in ten of us.
Why would any pollster ask a question about a proposal that isn't under consideration in Congress, and isn't even written up in bill form in Congress, especially when that question might easily be confused with a question about a proposal that is actually being debated? I addressed that issue in an article posted Monday entitled "'Public option' bait-and-switch fools pollsters"
(linked text).
I argued that pollsters allowed themselves to be fooled by the bait-and-switch campaign waged by the "option" movement's leaders. The "option" movement originally proposed a public program that would be available to ALL Americans and, partly for that reason, would be huge (it would, according to several estimates, insure half the non-elderly population). When Democrats wrote up their bills earlier this year, they watered the original version of the "option" down to almost nothing. But neither the "option" movement's leaders nor Democrats warned the public about the switch (linked text).
You might think the big-name polling firms would have had the smarts to avoid being suckered by the bait-and-switch. They didn't. Twenty-two of the 23 polls I looked at asked questions about the "bait." Only one asked about the actual mouse version of the "option" that is now the subject of furious (and very misinformed)debate across the country, and that was only after asking about the "bait" version.
My point here and in my article was not that the public doesn't support the mouse version of the "option." It's possible a majority does support the mouse version. My point is: The bait-and-switch campaign has been very successful with pollsters, and if it has been successful with pollsters, I bet it has been very successful with the public. If I'm correct about this -- if the public has been seriously misled by the bait-and-switch campaign for the "option" -- Democrats may be in for trouble. If Democrats pass the mouse version of the "option" when the public was expecting a large, "Medicare-like" version, the public might be a tad peeved.
Kip
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 21, 2009 10:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Priam1 on Oct 21, 2009 10:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Newstime on Oct 22, 2009 2:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans can be taken out of the equation entirely.
When the public spotlight is shined more directly on these two Democrats, accompanied by public pressure for action, we can expect, relative to the judicial-misconduct complaint filed against Ms. Aiken (Rule 11 d), a concession to the uninsured taxpayers represented in the complaint, a Constitutional ruling decreeing Medicare for All.
And President Barack Obama, as a constitutional lawyer, can also legitimately convey to her that she has made a mistake that she needs to correct. But, instead, 81 days and counting since he was reminded by Memo sent to the White House through Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ E-mail address, Mr. Obama has still failed to employ this Constitutional TRUMP CARD.
That's where public pressure comes in, to end the nonsense of Democrats continuing to raise campaign funds on the promise of bringing in health-coverage expansion.
81 Days and Counting since President Obama was offered solution to end health-care impasse!
Uninsured taxpayers lose another 81 days of potential health-care coverage!
By Charles H. Savage/Editorial Columnist
Continental Features/
Continental News Service, Inc.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us
One of the Most Common Chemicals Used in Modern Life Is Now Being Seen as a Health Threat




