On Utterly Meaningless Polling (and a Reader Challenge!)

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer with AlterNet.

We put a lot of stock in public opinion polls. But when the issue at hand is as technical and wonky as health care, I'm struck by how little they actually mean.

Without a poll, I can tell you that most Americans think everyone should have access to decent health care at an affordable price. Beyond that, what value is there really in polling data based on people's opinions about really complicated proposals that few understand?

A case in point. Yesterday, WingNut Daily informed me that most Americans agree on some basic principles of health care reform, citing a poll Zogby conducted for the conservative O'Leary report.

Here's the question they asked to determine the principle on which there was the most agreement:

The first issue was the purchase of health insurance. Americans right now only may buy from a provider licensed in their state.

"Some say that Americans should be allowed to purchase health insurance from providers in different states possibly creating more competition and driving down the price of health insurance. Do you agree or disagree?" the poll asked.

More than 82 percent said they agreed, and only about 7 percent disagreed.

Sounds reasonable on its face -- were I not a big dork who spends entirely too much time reading up on policy when I should be chasing after the ladies, I'd probably answer "yes" to that one myself.

But consider what's really at issue ...

States regulate the insurance industry. Providers have to abide by the regulations of any state in which they sell policies. But the degree to which states have adopted consumer-protections vary widely -- some states, like New Jersey, have relatively little regulation, while others, like Wisconsin for example, have robust protections for consumers.

In recent years, conservatives have offered various proposals for "reform" that would allow insurers to choose the regulations they'd like to follow by setting up in a state that has little in the way of consumer protections and then selling those lightly-regulated policies nationwide.

This would create a race to the bottom -- an insurer in a state with minimal consumer protections would be able to charge less for a policy because that insurer would have the freedom to deny more claims, avoid appeals of those denials and otherwise have a freer hand to screw over its customers.

So, the idea behind this proposal -- again, it was central to the McCain Underwear Gnome Plan, the Enzi plan and is a huge problem with the co-ops envisioned in the Baucus bill -- is to get around the tough regulations some states have adopted through the democratic process and allow insurers to "pick their regulators."

So, knowing that, how would you answer that poll question now?

Here's the reader challenge: get published on AlterNet!

In leiu of the usual long, rambling post, I thought I'd try something different and give you good folks a chance to get in on the fun.

So ... onto the second principle of health care upon which almost all of us supposedly agree: tort reform!

The margin was nearly as overwhelming for the second questions, which asked: "Currently, medical malpractice insurance costs doctors in some areas of the country up to $200,000 per year, a cost that doctors pass on to their patients in the form of higher fees for service. Do you agree or disagree that tort reform is needed?"

More than 78 percent agreed and about 12 percent disagreed.

Care to handle this one for us? Write up a post, send it in before 5 pm tomorrow, and we'll publish the best submission (or the one that appeals to me the most after happy hour) right here!

There's an AlterNet t-shirt in it for the winner.

PS: It's your post, but you might want to take a peek at this and this.