Matthew Yglesias » NYT/CBS Poll Shows People Love Socialized Medicine

Feb 16th, 2009 at 9:27 am

NYT/CBS Poll Shows People Love Socialized Medicine

It’s important to understand that when people say that a move to a single-payer health care system isn’t politically feasible, they don’t mean that it would be unpopular. They mean that our political system is too broken and corrupt to deliver one. Via Atrios, a CBS/NYT poll shows people want government-run health care:

There was also this finding from about a year ago:

Long story short, President Obama has his reasons for adopting a health care reform agenda that, while ambitious, is less ambitious than this. But there’s no reason for him or anyone else to be particularly terrified of conservatives characterizing their vision as socialism or government takeover or whatever else it is they like to say.

Comments
39

Filed under: Health care, Public Opinion,

39 Responses to “NYT/CBS Poll Shows People Love Socialized Medicine”

Notorious P.A.T. Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am
This is like asking people if they believe in evolution. We know for a fact socialized medicine is better than what we have now.
peejay Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 9:41 am
It does not stop the meatheads on TV from declaring to the American public that socialized medicine is an extremely unpopular idea, which they will do even when the same program might be reporting the results of another poll that says we want it.
joe from Lowell Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Republicans have certainly done a lot of boost the image of socialism over the past few months.

“Didja know Barack the Wealth Spreader is a socialist? I said he’s s socialist! Stop cheering, you idiots! He wants to spread the wealth! Like a socialist!

PUT THAT BANNER DOWN!

You know what? Screw you people.”
the other scott Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Shouldn’t we be making a distinction between socialized medicine and socialized insurance? We’re only talking about how we pay for healthcare rather than nationalizing hospitals, clinics and their employees aren’t we?
Ed Marshall Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am
That is the distinction. Straight up socialization of the medical system polls above industry.
El Cid Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:07 am
C’mon, now, let’s not forget the grand contributions our private health insurance corporations & HMO’s have made in getting people to hate them.
Brad Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
So, 49% of Americans are living in total fantasyland, where you get to have whatever medical treatment you want, whenever you want, someone else will pay for it, there will never be any choices to be made, no waiting, and the government will never deny you care. No doubt Democrats and their shills like Matt will be all too eager to sell this exact message.
Notorious P.A.T. Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:13 am
So, 49% of Americans are living in total fantasyland

Yes, it’s a fantasy land where we spend twice as much as other industrialized nations to have a lower life expectancy and worse infant mortality, where medical bills are far and away the #1 cause of bankruptcy, where drugs cost more, and. . . uh. . .

no one really likes the idea of government bureaucrats rationing health care

Why the hell is it worse to get rationed health care than none at all?
right Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Would be interesting to get a breakdown of how much those 49% (or 45%, depending on that poll) expect to pay in taxes for their newfangled socialized medicine, versus the remainder.

Also would be interesting to know how close they are to being correct on that belief.
right Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Why the hell is it worse to get rationed health care than none at all?

This is stupid. Obviously, people without healthcare will favor government-provided healthcare. The difficult question is the effect it has on the other 80-90% of Americans, and whether this trade-off is worth it.
Dan Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:19 am
@8: No. 49% of Americans believe that government health insurance for all, which would effectively create a buyers-side monopoly allowing negotiation of a minimum sustainable price for medical services, is preferable to our current system. Of course government insurance will deny certain procedures due to lack of cost-effectiveness. But once the insurer’s motive is sustainability rather than profit, the likelihood is that more services will be covered more generously while also permitting the single negotiator to wrestle the overall price downward.
Notorious P.A.T. Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Obviously, people without healthcare will favor government-provided healthcare. The difficult question is the effect it has on the other 80-90% of Americans, and whether this trade-off is worth it.

Ah the old “I don’t care if poor people die as long as I can get my boil lanced on time” argument.

Would be interesting to get a breakdown of how much those 49% (or 45%, depending on that poll) expect to pay in taxes for their newfangled socialized medicine

The answer is “a heck of a lot less than they currently pay in insurance costs”.
karl Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I recently overheard a co-worker (who, during the election, seemed to swallow all the right-wing talking points) express his hope that Obama would nationalize health care. When you can’t afford to see a doctor ideological consistency suffers.
Leo Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:30 am
“So, 49% of Americans are living in total fantasyland, where you get to have whatever medical treatment you want, whenever you want, someone else will pay for it, there will never be any choices to be made, no waiting, and the government will never deny you care.”

Or, alternatively, 49% of Americans are living in reality, where they can’t get the medical care they need, when they need it, they are paying through the nose for insurance, and the choices that need to be made are being made by for profit corporations who have a financial interest in denying claims.

In other words, maybe they aren’t imagining that government mangagment of healthcare will bring the promised land, they’re just satisfied at this point that the private sector has set the bar so low that even the government could do better.
Point Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Other scott got something when he pointed out the difference between “socialized medicine” and what he calls “socialized insurance” — but what most people call “single payer”. And that, in turn, is not the same thing as “universal health care”.

Even with such energy by conservatives wishing to cause confusion between socialism and the welfare state (and those on the left who are often only too happy to oblige), Americans have done reasonably well in showing their desire to see one without the other.

The fact that it’s such a tight race between whether or not socialized medicine “would be better” (which, by the way, in polling is not the same as saying “would prefer”) is indicative of this.
lobstakilla Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
it is regrettably easy to push certain buttons (e.g., no one really likes the idea of government bureaucrats rationing health care)

I dunno, is that really the bogeyman the fully insured republican congressman thinks it is? At this point, a great many people have either experienced or had a friend or family member who has experienced rationing of health care by insurance company bureaucrats.
Dan W Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:59 am
It shows, if anything, that people love the abstract idea of socialized medicine. As a Brit, I think the reality on the ground will be different when you start seeing cases like Linda O Doyle’s (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4040146.ece for example).

For those of you who don’t know, this is an example where a woman was a) denied cancer treatment from the NHS that had a good chance of saving her life because it did not meet the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence’s target of ‘cost per quality adjusted life year’ and b) subsequently had all of her chemotherapy treatment stopped when she decided to pay for the aforementioned drug privately.

I suggest that if you ask Americans if they’d like a government bureaucrat to make the decision whether or not they get the drugs that will save their life based on the ‘cost per quality adjusted life year,’ the answer will be very different.
witless chum Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I suggest that if you ask Americans if they’d like a government bureaucrat to make the decision whether or not they get the drugs that will save their life based on the ‘cost per quality adjusted life year,’ the answer will be very different.

Sure, but not a much different answer than if asked whether they’d like an insurance company bureaucrat to make the same decision based on how much it would profit the insurer.
JonF Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Re: So, 49% of Americans are living in total fantasyland, where you get to have whatever medical treatment you want, whenever you want, someone else will pay for it, there will never be any choices to be made, no waiting, and the government will never deny you care.

No more a fantasy land than believing that under the current system no one is ever denied care, there are no waits, and everything is entirely paid for by someone else. Meanwhile, no one is suggesting here that people get all the medical care they want: liposuction, nose jobs and other medically unncessary care will never be covered (just as such things are not covered by insurance now). So let’s send that strawman back to Oz.

Re: I suggest that if you ask Americans if they’d like a government bureaucrat to make the decision whether or not they get the drugs that will save their life based on the ‘cost per quality adjusted life year,’ the answer will be very different.

And why is a government bureaucrat any more objectionable than an insurance company bureaucrat? It’s not like such third party decisions aren’t already part of the system. I am going through a helluva a tussle right now with my dental carrier who will not authorize a crown because their records show the crown was already done– due to the fact that they entered the initial authorization in as an actual claim, which, for some arcane reason (probably involving a mix of incompetence and buck-passing) they can’t/won’t simply reverse out of the system. Sure, a crown isn’t life-saving treatment, but it’s still outrageous that egregious clerical errors like this can hold up treatment for months (yes, months!) on end. I have trouble seing how governmnent bureaucracy could be any worse. In fact, from what I recall from the years my father was on Medicare such flubs were much rarer, and usually promptly fixed.
joe from Lowell Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
So, 49% of Americans are living in total fantasyland, where you get to have whatever medical treatment you want, whenever you want, someone else will pay for it, there will never be any choices to be made, no waiting, and the government will never deny you care.

Uh, yeah, that’s what most Americans think when they hear the term “socialism.” You get whatever you want, whenever you want. You don’t pay for it. There are no choices, no waiting, and the government always gives you what you want.

Um, WHAT?!?

It’s funny to see people try to use the “bureaucrats will deny your treatment!” bogeyman. Do you people LIVE in this country? If so, how do you manage to get through the day while remaining blissfully unaware of how often health insurance companies do that? It’s on CNN all the time.
Notorious P.A.T. Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
From the article Dan W linked to:

“She is believed to have been the first patient to die after fighting for the right to top up NHS treatment with a privately purchased cancer medicine ”

It’s a sad story but if this is the first time something like that has happened it’s hardly evidence of a socialized health system run amok.
Fred Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
“We know for a fact socialized medicine is better than what we have now.”

Tell that to all the Europeans you find at Memorial Sloan Kettering, the Cleveland Clinic, etc. Why do they fly here and pay out of pocket for such inferior health care?

“It’s funny to see people try to use the “bureaucrats will deny your treatment!” bogeyman. Do you people LIVE in this country? If so, how do you manage to get through the day while remaining blissfully unaware of how often health insurance companies do that? It’s on CNN all the time.”

Right. Two points though. If it weren’t man-bites-dog, it wouldn’t be on CNN. In other words, those sorts of rejections are rare. And usually right after those stories the health insurance company backtracks and approves the treatment. That’s why health insurance gets more expensive, because it approves almost all treatments. When health insurance companies were denying more treatments (and holding down health care inflation) they weren’t too popular with the American public. What makes you think a government agency that did the same thing would be popular? It wouldn’t be, but by then we’d have no alternative.
JonF Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
re: In other words, those sorts of rejections are rare.

They’re actually very common. I’m on my third go-round with BS of this sort (details posted in a previous comment above). Talk to anyone my age who has been insured and had occasion to use that insurance. Chances are they’ve had at least claim or authoization denial they’ve had to fight, maybe more than one. And that doesn’t even count they people the insurance industry tries to blackball fron coverage altogether. The latter isn’t as common as it used to be, what with the 1996 HIPAA law, but it still happens far too much too– and it’s something that NEVER happens under national healthcare plans, including our own Medicare.
Fred Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:49 am
“and it’s something that NEVER happens under national healthcare plans”

Right, no one gets sent home to die in countries with national health care systems.
JonF Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Re: Right, no one gets sent home to die in countries with national health care systems.

My statement is that no one is ever refused coverage under such plans.
As for being “sent home to die” that happens here too: medical sceinbce cannot cure all diseases you know. Though when a case becomes hopeless, it’s usally hospice that gets involved, and depending on the circumstnces the patient may die at home, at a hospice facility or in a hospital. That’s true abroad as well.
DrSteveB Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I am so sick and tired of being told that single payer is off the table because it does not have political support or political feasibility. I call b.s. on all of them… from respectable liberals like Ezra Klein and Jacob Hacker, to Baucus, to Clinton, to alas Obama himself.

Here’s some MORE pollig data suggesting the American people are way ahead of the beltway consensus on this:

ABC News/Washington Post, Oct. 9-13, 2003:

“Which would you prefer – the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance; or a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that’s run by the government and financed by taxpayers?”

CURRENT=33%
UNIVERSAL=62%
NO OPINION=6%

Four years later the same question…

Associated Press/Yahoo News Poll, Dec. 14-20, 2007:

Which comes closest to your view?

“The United States should continue the current health insurance system in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but
some people have no insurance” = 34%

“The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers” = 65%

Refused / Not Answered = 2%

Interestingly, when offered essentially the same universal program is offered alone without the comparison to the current system, but with the single payer name, the numbers from the same AP/Yahoo News poll was lower but still a majority:

“Do you consider yourself a supporter of a single-payer health care system, that is a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, or not?”

YES = 54%
NO = 44%
REFUSED/NOT ANSWERED = 2%

See: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/20/154911/355

Also, Doctors are okay with this too:

Reflecting a shift in thinking over the past five years among U.S. physicians, a new study shows a solid majority of doctors — 59 percent — now supports national health insurance.

Such plans typically involve a single, federally administered social insurance fund that that guarantees health care coverage for everyone, much like Medicare currently does for seniors. The plans typically eliminate or substantially reduce the role of private insurance companies in the health care financing system, but still allow patients to go the doctors of their choice.

A study published in today’s Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading medical journal, reports that a survey conducted last year of 2,193 physicians across the United States showed 59 percent of them “support government legislation to establish national health insurance,” while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral.

The findings reflect a leap of 10 percentage points in physician support for national health insurance (NHI) since 2002, when a similar survey was conducted. At that time, 49 percent of all physician respondents said they supported NHI and 40 percent opposed it.

See: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/31/16624/7397

Inside the beltway cowardice yes, politically unacceptable outside of DC by the American people… NOT.
viagra Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:05 am
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cialis Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
levitra Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:35 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
SurgMed Says:
March 5th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Internists would support socialized medicine because their reimbursement rates are threatened to go down each year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551098/Cancer-survival-rates-worst-in-western-Europe.html
We are a country that is currently making decisions and not thinking of the consequences. If you socialize medicine don’t think I and many of my colleagues will continue to work 100 hour weeks if the government cuts physician reimbursements in half. The government is so efficient I know giving them total control will surely resolve the problem. I propose proof of health insurance to recieve cable. If socialized medicine does happen I will be suprised because it is going to require some major TORT reform.
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 4:17 am
Incredible site!
zyban Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra Says:
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
How to Get Your Ex Back Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 9:47 am
This is very up-to-date information. I think I’ll share it on Digg.
Major Health Insurance Cost Development: Insurers Willing to Cease Health-Based Price Discrimination Says:
April 19th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
[...] “Socialized medicine” and single-payer healthcare reform models look good to a near-majority (49%) of Americans, according to a recent poll. [...]

Matt Yglesias

NYT/CBS Poll Shows People Love Socialized Medicine

39 Responses to “NYT/CBS Poll Shows People Love Socialized Medicine”

Blogroll