More Americans than not want health law repeal: poll

[oberliner]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review President Barack Obama's healthcare reforms, more Americans want to it repealed than want to keep it, a poll released on Wednesday shows.

A Gallup survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults found that 47 percent favor the repeal of healthcare reform, versus 42 percent who want the law kept in place. Eleven percent had no opinion.

But the survey also showed that 50 percent of Americans believe the federal government has a responsibility to make sure everyone has health coverage, compared with 46 percent who do not.

The results, which have a 4 percentage point margin of error, suggest a sharply divided U.S. public as the Supreme Court prepares to begin hearing legal arguments next March from 26 states and an independent business group that want the law struck down as unconstitutional.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-usa-healthcare-poll-idUSTRE7AF1BD20111116

---

Interesting contradictions within the results of the poll.

[RC]

That is one of the danger of Push Polls.

If Single Payer, Universal Health Care had been on the table, this would not ba an issue.

[No Elephants]

8. Or even a meaningful public option. Oh, well, maybe in 2055.

However, I tend to doubt it. By then, this country will be so far to the right, we'll probably ALL be applauding as uninsured folk die untreated.

Change doesn't really take all that long. Compare the Great Society with today.

[Tesha]

17. Change requires that a political party be willing to lose an election for it.

When you're perpetually in CYA mode, you don't tend
to vote for big changes. In fact, you'd probably prefer
not to vote on anything at all that might "go on the
record".

I'm convinced this is one reason why the Democrats
never work very hard to break Republican filibusters.

Tesha

[Gormy Cuss]

19. Show that this was a push poll.

Which questions were pushes? A push poll is designed with the intent to influence opinions. What is more likely going on here is that either Gallup did not ask the proper follow up questions to tease out how strong those opinions were or whether there are nuances like those who favor repeal really only want to repeal portions of it (like the mandated purchase, which GOPers have managed to make the most well known component of HCRA.)

Another recent Gallup poll showed that employer provided health care was on the decline, yet fewer 18-25 years reported being without insurance. So, what's the one big reform of HCRA that's been largely implemented? Yep. The provision for keeping adult children on parents' policies until age 26.

[dotymed]

28. That is true. This poll indicates what many of us have been

working for, for decades. People want and deserve universal health care. The changes that the people got with "Obamacare" are both good and bad. The insurance companies and big pharma were the big winners. "We" got some concessions which did help. I hate to see the baby thrown out with the bath water, but the structure of "Obamacare" made that a real possibility. Probably, that was intentional.

While the prospect of everyone being insured is fine (everyone deserves health care). However, doing so while vastly increasing the profits for the insurance companies (by mandate) is a slap in the face to Americans. We have enjoyed some very positive changes under Obamacare, ie.. the end of lifetime benefit caps, the ability to insure our children on our policy for a longer period of time, the (future) mandate that ends pre-existing conditions (which, IMO, should have come first), these and other changes have been great for most Americans.

However, here comes the rub, mandating that all Americans purchase health care insurance, without mandating insurance cost reform, is a bitter pill. This is where the very real possibility of "throwing out the baby with the bath water" is realized. If "our" neo-con majority led SCOTUS does as expected and repeals Obama care as unconstitutional ( since they are bought and paid for puppets of big business, they might allow the insurance companies to rape us by mandate) then Americans lose the few positive changes that have (and will) be created by Obamacare.

As most Americans agree, universal health care should have been mandated instead of Obamacare. Not surprisingly, "our" politicians were not even allowed to vote on that.

So here we are, hoping that we can keep the few money saving crumbs that were thrown to us, while wondering (and worrying) if the mandated purchase of health care is constitutional. When Obamacare was first introduced, we all knew that this provision would wind up in the courts.

What a sick joke to play on Americans. Single payer/ universal health care should have been "allowed" to be an option that we could've voted on. What a mess greed makes. Go OWS.

[No Elephants]

1. In a related story, Republicans excel at propaganda and are persistent at it.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. What subset of the repeal group wants Single Payer?

[No Elephants]

12. Not really a fair question.

Democrats touted the health care act, both before and after it passed and disparaged both single payer and the public option.

Republicans touted abolishing the health care act, both before and after it passed and disparaged both single payer and the public option.

No one has put effort and big bucks into touting single payer to the public.

However, those who have Medicare, aka single payer, seem to be quite reluctant to have it cut in any way.

[SkyDaddy7]

22. It will take massive $ campaign & lots of TIME...

To convince the majority of Americans to give up their current insurance for Single Payer & true government run health care program.

If the Republicans & the Right Wing media empire can convince most Americans that the new HC Law is a government takeover of health care there is no way Single Payer stands a chance right now...I know most here do not want to admit this but it is 100% reality!

I think Single Payer is the best system we could have but I also know it will take time & lots of campaigning or teaching the American people why it is the best system. This is why the new HC Law is a good thing because if it is held up as Constitutional then the insurance companies will have to stop their games or the PO will be the next step...Then from there Single Payer would be much easier to pass. Especially if the PO is run correctly & people like it they will see the idea that government run health care is not something to be scared of.

Step by step...

[Laelth]

27. The American people don't have to be "taught." That's not how the U.K got the NHS.

It takes a political party and some political leaders with the will and the votes to just do it. That's how the U.K. got its health care system. Only after it was done did the U.K.'s citizens fall in love with it--to the point where now they would revolt before they gave it up.

This phenomenon I am describing is called leadership, and it is sorely lacking in today's Democratic Party.

-Laelth

[No Elephants]

46. It's not how the American people got Medicare, either. Or Social Security before that.

[jwirr]

32. Agreed - as to time we have been waiting since Harry Truman.

[No Elephants]

47. Not really. Truman didn't push it Nixon would have passed it if Kennedy hadn't blocked him.

Kennedy regretted that to his dying day, bless him.

But he did so much for health care in this country, including working on a bill (that was cast aside) while he was dying that he more than repaid that debt, if there was one.

[No Elephants]

45. I disagree. A health care law that is a bailout for companies that don't need bailouts

is bad. It costs the government and individuals a lot and people don't see benefits from it that commensurate. So, it only reinforces the Republican meme that everything government sticks its nose into is expensive and riddled with waste, fraud and every other bad thing imaginable.

As far as alleged "reality," sure, if you don't do something, or even try for it, it won't happen. Just saying that single payer is not possible doesn't make it true.

By any standard, The Great Society wasn't possible and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was even less possible than that.

[Laelth]

26. Count me amongst those who favor repeal and would prefer single payer. n/t

-Laelth

[jwirr]

33. I have worked and lobbied for single payer for years. But I want to

know if you prefer not HCR program or single payer because that is the choice. Congress does not have the guts to pass what we really need. Nor do they have the votes now.

[Laelth]

37. Not sure I understand what you're asking, but here goes.

If I had the choice of having no new federal legislation on health care or having the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act, I'd choose no new federal legislation. Here's why:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/38

and

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/39

-Laelth

[jwirr]

39. I see - I know that MN wanted to start their own single payer but

then along came 2010 and we are just lucking we have Governor Dayton to veto all the bills that are coming from the Tbagger congress.

Do you think there is a chance that Jerry Brown will be able to get a single payer program for California now?

[Laelth]

42. I think California is in a holding pattern.

Brown can't buck Obama by launching a program that basically rejects the President's plan. If the law is overturned by the SCOTUS, however, all bets are off, and I think that CA can and will adopt a single-payer system. I don't see Brown vetoing it.

So, I'm betting the conservatives on the SCOTUS will uphold the mandate. That's what best serves their corporate masters.

-Laelth

[dkf]

3. That isn't a contradiction. They don't like the way Obama tried to cover everyone.

[emulatorloo]

7. No, the Republican Propaganda Machine was very effective.

[dkf]

11. Well I don't like it. It doesn't even fix the long run numbers.

[No Elephants]

13. True, but the combination of no public option plus a mandate is ve unpopular. Both things are true.

Plus, no where near enough in the way of cost cutting.

[CBHagman]

18. I think you're on the mark.

The GOP has been selling the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "government takeover of health care," even though it's not, and as "Obamacare," an expression the media dutifully, or lazily, echoes. In fact the GOP's negative campaigning is based on forming public opinions, fashioning the image of its opponents, and I suspect that's what's at a play here.

And despite the high number of bankruptcies caused by medical bills, it's likely most people simply don't think about the system until it affects them negatively. I think it's natural for people to fear change and especially changes they don't understand very well.

Recently I was talking to a young woman who said her political views basically lined up with the Republicans and yet almost in the same breath said that she hoped there would be a very different health care system for her children someday. She didn't use the term single payer but what she was describing was more in line with that than what we have today.

[emulatorloo]

4. Contradictions = the success of the rightwing noise machine in poisoning the well.

[No Elephants]

14. Yep, plus an unpopular law. Really deadly combo.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. I'm perfectly okay with the results

Since I would have preferred a simple law titled: Medicare for All

[William Seger]

6. They should have a poll...

... to see how many people really know what the healthcare reforms WERE.

[emulatorloo]

10. It includes Death Panels and free healthcare for illegal aliens. That's what I heard.

[No Elephants]

15. Anothrer good point!

Whose fault do you suppose that is?

[Ship of Fools]

9. Absolutely ... I've heard it described that

when the HCR-clueless in the g-pop are asked if they want it repealed, they say
"hell, yes." When it's broken down and parts are explained to them, they say they
like it.

Polls suck. Change the wording just the right way, and you get two entirely different responses.
Actually, polls would be GOOD indicators of public mood if the effing polls themselves
were honest ... no?

[ProSense]

16. First

that's not big news since Gallup doesn't indicate a trend. What was it the last time they polled? Is support higher or lower?

Gallup, January:



Based on that poll, repeal is up one point and "keep it" is up two points.

The current poll does show a trend in support for a government-run health care system:



A five-point increase is good, especially since there was a steep decline over several years.

Still, these numbers are significantly lower than most polls that showed support for a public option.

[joanbarnes]

20. Repeal and replace with Medicare for all.

[CountAllVotes]

30. Willing to pay $100 a month plus the cost of supplemental insurance?

One must ask themselves this question ($99.90 is the minimum cost for Part B Medicare effective Jan. 1, 2012; if your income is high, it can be as much as $300+ a month just for Part B). It can easily cost as much as $500.00+ for a decent Medicare plan as part B with its deductible only covers so much and then, hopefully, the other plans YOU BUY WITH YOUR OWN MONEY will cover the rest of the costs of care via Medicare.

Many seem to think that Medicare is free.

Well it is not free around here! It is costing this household right here over $1,000.00 a month!

Medicare for all ... right.

Do people want to PAY FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL?

[jwirr]

36. Good point - few people understand that recipients pay for Medicare

out of their social security.

[Yo_Mama]

40. It's far worse than that

Retirees don't pay for most of their Medicare insurance!

The Part B premium is what they pay - about $100 in 2012. That only covers about 75% of the cost of Part B - the rest comes out of the general fund. And then they pay for prescription drug coverage and Medigap, because Medicare has a 20% copay.

Part A (hospitalization) is covered by the Medicare portion of the FICA tax, which is 2.9% of ALL wages and salaries. There is no cap for this tax. Currently that covers about 47-48 million people.

If we assume that covering the balance of the population under part A would cost half as much per beneficiary, that means that the extra Part A cost per new beneficiary would be something like:

.5 X 260 million, or 130 million same cost beneficiaries,
130/48 = 2.7, so the payroll cost to cover the new beneficiaries would be about 7.8%, giving us a total FICA cost of 12.4 + 2.9 + 7.8 = 23.1%. A lot of poorer individuals would have a hard time paying that, and even if it were split between employee and employer it would result in lower salaries and less jobs.

On top of that each individual would pay $100 a month for Part A, plus some for children. I would guess it would be about $140 per adult beneficiary to cover the kids.

But that still doesn't cover prescription drugs and the 20% copay, which is why retirees end up spending at least $600 a month for a couple for extra insurance to cover some of that.

We could have a program for poorer people that allowed them subsidized federal coverage for their "Medigap" and Part D (prescription). Per person it would come to about another $100 a month at a minimum, per unsubsidized adult it would probably cost about $220 a month.

The reason Medicare for Everyone never flew was because it was very expensive - a huge number of people wouldn't be able to pay for it.

Also, not all of the Medicare Part B and Part D or Part C cost is paid by beneficiaries - they pay 75%, and the general fund pays about 25%, or is supposed to. So we would need an additional income tax increase to pay for that 25%. That would probably run to another 3% of payroll. There is no way the bottom half could pay that, so we might as well just make that 8% and impose it on income exceeding the SS cap. Those with incomes exceeding 100K, 200K for a couple.

Medicare isn't cheap coverage at all. People just think it is because they only see a portion of the costs - they forget about the Medicare wage tax which really funds most of it. It is GOOD insurance - it pays for most things. But it is not cheap at all.

Also, Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals would have to be increased, because right now you lose money on a lot of the services. So it would end up costing more than I have listed. On the other hand, everybody would have at least 80% coverage for doctors and hospitals, and employers would probably pay the bulk of the prescription/Medigap for their employees. Corporations would love it - it would be far cheaper for them.

Everybody would pay a lot more in taxes, though, and many workers would end up paying more for medical insurance than they now do.

[No Elephants]

48. Please see Reply 43. And Medicare is like Democracy.

It's a real lousy system, until you consider all the other alternatives.

[No Elephants]

44. I think most people know that, either because they are on it or know someone who is,

parents or grandparents, for example.

[CountAllVotes]

51. some people I know believe that Medicare is free

and no it is not free as you point out. However, the supplemental costs aren't taken out of one's social security check, that check comes out of your checkbook.

My point is this: It seems that people don't want to pay for the health care reform. It would cost a person in fair health with pre-existing conditions around 50 years old who is presently uninsured about $300.00 a month in some parts of the country.

People are complaining about it because they either cannot afford the $300.00 a month or they think that Medicare is a better option because they think it is free, or near free which is simply not true.

[No Elephants]

43. Couple of things.

Medicare covers the elderly and disabled, the two populations that, speaking in generalizations, require the most health care.

If the costs were spread out over the entire population, it would be less expensive.

Part B premium is under $100 unless your income is over $85,000 a year. If your income is over %85,000 a year, $300 a month to insure yourself as an elderly or disabld person is not unreasonable to ask of you.

$1000 a month for the kind of coverage you get with Medicare plus supplemental is damned good compared to what it takes, say my fifty year old friend to insure himself, his wife and his young son. (All three are healthy.) And the coverage is so lousy that I am lying to my doctor to get prescriptions so I can give him the pills. (Yes, me. Ms. Goody Two Shoes.)

[jwirr]

34. unfortunately that was not an option on the poll and probably not

with the congress we have now either.

[Scuba]

21. I'm OK with that if it's replaced with Medicare for All. n/t

[emulatorloo]

23. Remember, Joe Liebermann would not allow Medicare for over 55.

That was one of the public option compromises floated once it was clear PO did not have votes. Even though it was an old idea of Liebermanns.

[No Elephants]

41. Sorry, the automatic Joe Lieberman alibi doesn't make it.

First, we have no idea what bargaining was even attempted with Joe Schmoe.

What did people try promising him? Or threatening him with?

Why did Lieberman get to keep his Homeland Security chair and other "perkswhile defying the Party on the signature legislation of Obama's first term? How hard could people have really tried to twist Joe's arm if his defiance cost him nothing?

Fact of the matter is that no bill with a public option even made to Joe's desk.

Lyndon Johnson's Congress was full of Democrats who did not want to+ vote for the Civil Rights Act or the Great Society legislation--and that's before you get to the Republicans.

Second, the bill ultimately passed in reconciliation. 50+ Biden when the Democratic caucus had 59, 58 if you don't count Lieberman. No one even attempted to put in the public option, though.

[Laelth]

24. I also favor its repeal. n/t

-Laelth

[Old and In the Way]

25. Private Insurance mandates = fail. Single payer healthcare = win

Too bad the Democrats won't make this their flagship issue in 2012.

[NorthCarolina]

29. That is exactly correct, however the Dems are just as "owned" by corporate elites as the GOP. nt

[area51]

53. +1 n/t

[stockholmer]

31. until the US gets single-payer,universal health care,it's doomed,the Obama plan is corporatist shite

The Young Turks and many others did a wonderful job exposing this for months.

[No Elephants]

49. Which is precisely why Uygur is no longer on MSNBC.

First Amendment?

What First Amendment?

Ask the Constitutional Law Professor who got Cenk fired for not being sufficiently "establishment."

[CRK7376]

35. They didn't poll me.

I would have voted to keep the healthcare program. All need quality healthcare.

[VaYallaDawg]

38. Saddest part about losing HC coverage

will be that the people who need it most will be the ones to lose it.

[No Elephants]

50. They won't be repealing it any time soon. And if they do repeal it,

everyone will be without it, not just the ones who need it most.

[and-justice-for-all]

52. Yeah, contradiction indeed.

"more Americans want to it repealed " but "Americans believe the federal government has a responsibility to make sure everyone has health coverage"