US: Health Care (Kaiser 8/4-11)
Emily Swanson | August 20, 2009
Kaiser Family Foundation
8/4-11/09; 1,203 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Kaiser: summary, news release, toplines)
National
Do you think _______ would be better off or worse off if the president and Congress passed health care reform, or don't you think it would make much difference?
You and your family:
36% Better off
31% Worse off
27% Not much difference
The country as a whole:
45% Better off
34% Worse off
14% Not much difference
The Medicare program for seniors:
38% Better off
30% Worse off
19% Not much difference
And if the president and Congress do pass health care reform, do you think the nation would end up spending more on health care, less on health care, or would it stay about the same?
61% More
16% Less
17% Same
Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans?
59% Favor
38% Oppose
By Emily Swanson | August 20, 2009 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments
59% Favor. That's a whopper of a number. Either this is a huge outlier, or this is the first poll to actually state what a "public health insurance option" actually would be.
Posted on August 20, 2009 2:15 PM
Kaiser is generally regarded as one of the most reliable measurers of public opinion regarding health care matters. It will be interesting to see if these numbers are repeatable.
Interesting to use the term "Medicare"
Posted on August 20, 2009 2:51 PM
The 'favor or oppose government plan' question does not mention the restrictions placed on private plans, to force them to mimic the public plan.
The reasoning behind forcing private plans to look like the public plan is probably to make sure everybody is covered for everything, but in practice, the effect will be to make price the primary difference between private and public plans.
Minimum coverages will become politicized, with special interests lobbying the government to include their specialty (orthodontics, vision, dental, plastic surgery, etc.) All innovation will go out the window.
I would actually support a public plan if..
1) it was forced to balance its budget every year
2) there was absolutely no relationship, at all, between the standards governing the government plan and private insurance
3) private plans were allowed to compete nationwide (interstate). If the government plan is allowed to, why not private plans?
Also, why not look at doctor's costs? There is talk of tort reform, but why not look at all costs? If doctor's fees are driving up costs, why not look at doctor's costs?
Posted on August 21, 2009 10:39 AM
By reducing physician reimbursements we will inadvertantly put many physicians out of bussiness, the majority of which are primary care providers. Furthermore reduced physician incomes will diminsh the quality of those physicians that choose to remain in practice. Why does liberal America object when those who are most deserving persue a reasonable albeit relatively high income?
Posted on August 22, 2009 1:38 PM
Post a comment