Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Health Care (Gallup 8/31-9/2)


Gallup
8/31-9/2/09; 1,026 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)

National

Would you advise your member of Congress to vote for or against a healthcare reform bill when they return to Washington in September, or do you not have an opinion?
37% Vote For, 39% Vote Against

How much will your representative's position on healthcare reform affect your vote in the next Congressional elections? Will it be a major factor, a minor factor, or not a factor in your vote?
64% Major Factor, 21% Minor Factor

 

Comments
Aaron_in_TX:

I find this to be the most instructive part of this poll:

"A month of town-hall meetings across the country during Congress' August recess has hardly budged Americans' views about passing a healthcare reform bill, or helped many more Americans form an opinion. The public is as divided over healthcare reform today as at the beginning of August (37% in favor and 39% opposed), with a large segment still undecided."

So the negative town halls really had no effect. This indicates the people at the townhalls were opposed to health care reform and Obama from the start.

Also, despite the fact that it found women 18-49 more likely to support health care reform, there seems to be a fairly even split among all the demographics they looked at. I wish they had looked at race as well, a major omission from this poll.

I don't understand why seniors are so against it. They really have nothing to lose.

____________________

Stillow:

@Aaron_in_TX:

What are you talking about? Seniors have the most to lose. It will be seniors who feel the brunt of the rationing which will occur. You do provide coverage for an additional 50 million people without a plan to add a proportional number of new doctors and hospitals and expect there not to be rationing.

As we see in conires like Britain, seniors bare the brunt of rationing. If a 25yr old needs a new hip and so does a 75 yr old then a bureaucracy of course will provide the treatment to the younger person who can be more productive.

The numbers simply don't add up, adding that many people will cause rationing and seniors know they will be at the bottom end of that expereince. When Obama and these politicans say we will be paying for all treatments for all people, it is just a lie, there is not enough money i nthe system to do that. And simply by adding 50 million new people to the insurance rolls, just by pure logisitics you will have rationed care and waiting lists to see doctors, espeically speialists.....so if i were 65 or older I too would be strongly opposed to this legislation.

____________________

@Stillow:

Get your facts right, Stillow. The NHS in Britain performs 87% of hip replacements on over 60s. Stillow, just look at how the system works in Britain. It's great! Mind you, you're not even going for proper government-run healthcare, merely government run insurance. As on option. Possibly.
Do you seriously think we go around saying 'you cannot have treatment' to anyone? No, it's coverage for everyone. And if we, in Britain, can do it, surely you in the US, the richest country on Earth, can do it? If you are going to oppose healthcare reform, at least get your facts right first.

Follow the link for Politifact.com's factchecking of the argument that older people can't get hip-replacements on the NHS.

Jon (UK)

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

The point was that seniors are on medicare, and no one is going to seriously cut that gravy train. It would be political suicide. My understanding of the bill is that those covered under medicaid and medicare remain unchanged.

How many young people do you know that need hip replacements? They are not going to cause rationing on that.

____________________

Wong:

The notion that someone in GB who is 25 would get a hip replacement before another who is 75 is something you pulled out of the GOP's bag o' bald faced lies.

____________________

Stillow:

@Aaron_in_TX:

The hip thing was just an example....seniors are worried about waiting lists and rationing. You can google waiting lists in GB for example, people wait months just to see a sepcialist....in some cases people wait so long they actually die before the treatment can be given.

Its numbers guys, you can't add 50 million more people to the current system and expect there not to be waits. We are not adding new doctors or building new hospitals....hell you can hardly get a room now at the hospital, imagine another 50 million people trying to get a room. Seniors don't really have a lot of "time" to wait for treatment....that is why they are driving the opposition against this mess.

We don't have the money or the resources to suddenly add 50 million new people without severe rationing and long wait lists. Its as simple as basic math.

____________________

Stillow:

@MancJon:

I have been to London three times....you guys don't do much that works well including health care....just look i nthe mirror and smile....you Brits can't even get good treatment for your teeth let alone major medical.

____________________

Wong:

One wonders how it is that the UK manages to rate 10 nations higher than the US (37th vs 47th)in longevity, with their elderly waiting in line and dying from health care rationing.

Pull another one from the GOP bag o' lies?

____________________

Stillow:

@Wong

compare survival rates and treatment levels for people with cancer or other types of illness. There are actually hopistals in the US which get a good part of their income from Canadian customers who cannot get treatment in Canada.

This is pointless, if you guys cannot grasp a thing as simple as basic math, then your hopeless. Let me try to put it into a more liberal context, one that maybe you can understand. But you really should be able to grasp a concept as simple as this....you can't add 50 million more people to a infrastructure staying the same size and expect there won't be rationing and delays in treatment.

Let's say your annual flag burning meeting is coming up again. The past 10 years you've always had roughly 50 people show up every year and you do it in a stadium that only holds about that much, 50 people. But suddenly this year you get 250 libs to show up....But you only have room for 50 people at a time and you only bought 50 flags for libs to burn....So for flag burners 51-250 they are going to have to wait for someone to leave before they get a slot inside the stadium and they will have to wait for someone to run to the local store and buy more flags...but chances are the store, say home depot doesn't stock 250 flags at once, they maybe have 100, which is ok because you only had money really for 50,so you buy what they have, but putting it on your credit card cus you didn't have the money....you come back to the stadium and tell 100 people you ifnally have flags for them, but the last 100 people won't get a flag because there wasn't enough at the store...and you didn't have enough money.

So you made people wait to get into the stadium, people had to wait while you got more flags and then some people got left out becuase the store didn't have enough.....and you lacked funding.

There, I tried to put it into a context liberals might be able to understand better. Since I know you guys fight for the right of people to burn the flag....so does this help by puttig it into a more liberal-freindly context?

____________________

Okaybyme:

Stillow certainly seems to know a great deal about flag burning. I'm not so sure about the connection to health care reform. Other than countless Canadians flocking to nameless American hospitals for treatments. Or perhaps Stillow was refering to survival rate of major illnesses...hmm last I checked it was pretty even with the exception being cardiac conditions (think not so many people, big country)

Then of course there is the American system, where anybody can receive their needed hip replacement surgery...after they pay their $5,000 up front.

____________________

bigreed:

Anyone remotely involved in public health would tell you the folly of using 'survival rates' for any sort of analysis. They are basically a trumped up statistic that can be calculated to show whatever result you're after.

Mortality rates for specific diseases are a far more pure statistic to determining health care efficiency for said disease.

____________________

bigreed:

Also, notice Stillow is fighting the typical Know-Nothing Party's straw man of "Canada and the UK" despite the fact that current proposals are about as similar to the NHS as they are to the health care system on Mars.

____________________

John:

Firstly, as bigread mentioned, the proposals going through congress at the moment are for an alternative insurer, the government, to the privite insurers. In the UK the NHS is the national health provider which covers about 90% of health care in the UK. Comparisons to what happens in the UK to what might happen under the new prospals are inane.

Secondly, why the attacks on the NHS from people who have never used it and know little about it. The NHS does have it problems and there is plenty of room from improvement but I'll take the British Health system with it's higher life expentacy, universal coverage (with no need to worry about losing ones insurance), and cost which are half of the american system, any day of the week.

Thirdly, the 50 million uninsured do use the American 'infrastructure' but only when their issues have become both serious and have gone (usually) beyond the point of prevention which is an incredibly expensive and resources sapping policy. While this by itself probably will not pay for the additional cover (The exact gains are very hard to reliably calculate) it will be combined with these people providing at least some revenue to the government. Other cost-saving policies will be needed, especially as the population grows older. This is what the republican party should be arguing about and what would/could make the bill better.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR