Washington Post Poll Finds Strong Support for Public Option
Washington Post poll finds that people like the public option but insists on nonetheless dubbing it “controversial”:
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public.
Americans remain sharply divided about the overall packages moving closer to votes in Congress and President Obama’s leadership on the issue, reflecting the partisan battle that has raged for months over the administration’s top legislative priority. But sizable majorities back two key and controversial provisions: both the so-called public option and a new mandate that would require all Americans to carry health insurance.
Weird. That said, I think the main takeaway the deeper you bore into the poll is that (as usually) public opinion doesn’t have great grasp of policy detail:
Independents and senior citizens, two groups crucial to the debate, have warmed to the idea of a public option, and are particularly supportive if it would be administered by the states and limited to those without access to affordable private coverage.
What “administered” by the states would mean, exactly, is a bit hard to pin down. But creating 50 separate public options is a much worse idea than creating one (or a few) big ones. A public option just for California or New York or Texas might work okay, but a Vermont or Wyoming public option is going to be way to small to be effective. Insurance is about aggregating risks, you don’t want a plan that’s limited to a small fraction of the population of a small state.
The question the Post asked about making the public option “available only to people who did not have a choice of affordable private insurance” seems very ill-considered. On the one hand, in all the versions of health reform on the table the public option is limited to people who’d be participating in the health insurance exchange—which is to say people not eligible for Medicare or for employer-provided insurance. Then on the other hand, in all the versions of health reform on the table people participating in the exchange are eligible for federal subsidies to ensure the affordability of health insurance. So on one construction of making the public option “available only to people who did not have a choice of affordable private insurance” we’re not talking about modifying the standard public option plan at all. But on another construction of the phrase we’re talking about creating a public option that nobody would be eligible for.
24 Responses to “Washington Post Poll Finds Strong Support for Public Option”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 20th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Something inside me figures that the public thinks a public option would be available to the public, and will be upset when they have to pay more for their crappy employer coverage than what they could get through an exchange.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I don’t even get what people are thinking with that. “Sure it’s great if poor people have the option, but I rather not have that choice myself.”
October 20th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Oh and I understand why they prefer it be administered by the states. But you can just give it a fancy state-oriented name without changing too much of the national scope of the program.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I mentioned this at the tail end of an earlier thread: Senator Roland Burris, appointed by the disgraced Governor Blagojevich, has announced that he will NOT vote for Obama’s Healthcare Bill UNLESS it has the Public Option.
Since the Democratic leadership has crapped on Senator Burris as a deep embarrassment — and since he has no hope of getting the DNC support for his reelection — he does not have much to lose.
It’s kinda hilarious that it takes the allegedly evil Blagojevich to make the purehearted Obama and the Democratic leadership live up to their pronounced vows at the very moment that they want to sellout in a sordid backroom deal with Billy Tauzin and his buddies. heh heh
October 20th, 2009 at 10:15 am
See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091019/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_burris__relevancy_3
October 20th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Correction to 4: Should read
“make the purehearted Obama and the Democratic leadership live up to their pronounced VALUES at the very moment that they want to sellout THE PUBLIC in a sordid backroom deal with Billy Tauzin and his buddies.”
October 20th, 2009 at 10:35 am
As usual, I think the upshot to this polling is basically just that the Democrats can do whatever they think will work best in the long run and not worry too much about immediate blowback on a national level.
Unfortunately, individual states and district may vary, so perhaps something like an opt-out scheme does make sense politically.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:38 am
the Democrats can do whatever they think will work best in the long run
You call that an upshot?
October 20th, 2009 at 10:41 am
I don’t think it can reasonably be disputed that the public option is “controversial.” A majority can support something that is vociferously objectionable to the minority. That’s what we have here.
Hopefully, when the controversy is resolved, we will have a public health insurance option. But it is not resolved yet.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:42 am
“Administered by the states” does not have to mean “does not bargain as a unit”. It could just mean “has offices in your state that you can call/visit without having to go to Washington”. (Which could make a lot of difference to people’s perception of it without having much of anything to do with its costs.)
P.S. The fact that it’s popular with a majority doesn’t keep it from being controversial. Clinton was popular, but also controversial. The Iraq War was popular for a while, now it’s unpopular, but it’s been controversial all along.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:46 am
@davenyc:
Well, that phrase referred specifically to independents and senior citizens. Senior citizens, already covered by government-run health insurance, oppose new government-run health insurance in greater numbers than younger citizens.
Some might say this is an “I got mine, fuck you” thing, MY says that its not so noteworthy (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/the-health-care-generation-gap.php), but there it is.
As for independents, most people in general are happy with their insurance – because they haven’t gotten sick enough to get dropped, become uninsurable, go bankrupt, etc. They want cheaper premiums, sure, but until something goes wrong, lots of people are ok with what they have.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Reading back over that, I should be clear that I am “some”.
Senior citizens, quit being dicks about this.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:09 am
A public option just for California or New York or Texas might work okay, but a Vermont or Wyoming public option is going to be way to small to be effective.
Agreed. But this kinda dances around a more fundamental point: why don’t we have a national market for health insurance?
Now, I gather the reason for this is that insurance regulation is a state-level power, and a true national market therefore isn’t possible. But, in a time when we’re trying to do what is possible to curb costs, is this wise? Now, I most certainly wouldn’t want the standards of low regulation/crappy insurance product states imposed nationally. But if robust, truly consumer-friendly national standards were imposed, wouldn’t we be better off having a national market?
My understanding is that the various proposals before Congress do impose some national standards, but it seems we’re tip-toeing around this larger issue. What’s stopping us from going all the way? Am I missing something obvious?
(And credit where credit’s due: it’s usually conservatives I hear making this point; although I don’t agree with their larger agenda WRT health care, on this one point I think they’re likely correct).
October 20th, 2009 at 11:18 am
What you are missing Jaspar is the immense patronage/corruption which the 50 Offices of State Insurance Commissioner/Board provides to our political class.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:25 am
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125599567408695255.html#mod=todays_us_page_one
Today: “The idea of creating a government-run health-insurance plan, once on life support in the Senate, is making a recovery among Democrats writing health-care legislation.
So far, no one is talking about a nationwide Medicare-like plan of the sort sought by many liberals, but several variations short of a national plan are being considered.
One would establish a national plan only if other proposals in the Democrat-led health overhaul fail to expand insurance coverage. Another would create a government plan, but allow states to opt out. Still another would allow states to opt in to a government plan, or experiment with their own plans. Prospects are growing that one of these variations — or a blend of them — will make it into the final Senate bill.
“This issue is alive, and we’re looking at it,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.).”
Why the fuck were the ususal suspects like Petey – who slammed Obama dishonestly during the primary – getting people all riled up in August that Obama had sold us out and there would be no public option? The assholes were making the gullible despair even though the process wasn’t even half way done. Drama queens extraordinaire.
@ Wiliams. Burris is one Senator who won’t be running for reelection because he can’t raise any money. Blagojevitch is corrupt as shit and an egomaniac to boot. Have you read reviews of his book?
October 20th, 2009 at 11:33 am
What, precisely, is this “public option” which the Post poll finds a majority in favor of?
I suspect that if queried the ignorati would proffer a definition rather far afield of the “public options” which are actually being considered.
Most people I talk to who favor it basically think it means the government providing low cost/free insurance to people who want/need it and very many think it means a single payer plan along the lines of Britain or Canada paid for by taxing the “rich”.
As for those who favour the individual mandate most believe that the government will actually control and lower insurance costs. Ha ha ha ha!
What I find most interesting is that anyone, excepting only those who argue against ANY government involvement in providing health care, would go all gaga for or against something so undefined as the “public option” currently is.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I don’t think there is controversy. Just because something is unpopular with a minority and gets loudly denounced doesn’t mean it is controversial. I haven’t heard any detractors make a reasonable case against it. They seem to just say it is wrong for government to do it. It isn’t a controversy unless they make a case against it with at least a little substance.
A lot of people hate the Dallas Cowboys, vociferously, but they are not controversial.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:45 am
[...] Matthew Yglesias: The question the Post asked about making the public option “available only to people who did not have a choice of affordable private insurance” seems very ill-considered. On the one hand, in all the versions of health reform on the table the public option is limited to people who’d be participating in the health insurance exchange—which is to say people not eligible for Medicare or for employer-provided insurance. Then on the other hand, in all the versions of health reform on the table people participating in the exchange are eligible for federal subsidies to ensure the affordability of health insurance. So on one construction of making the public option “available only to people who did not have a choice of affordable private insurance” we’re not talking about modifying the standard public option plan at all. But on another construction of the phrase we’re talking about creating a public option that nobody would be eligible for. [...]
October 20th, 2009 at 11:45 am
are particularly supportive if it would be administered by the states and limited to those without access to affordable private coverage
Maybe people should be informed that this already exists. It’s called Medicaid.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Also, it’s funny that the Washington Post, in full pro-Democrat hack mode, highlights the public option result, and buries the real headline: a plurality opposes health care “reform”. So, if Congress is following public polling numbers, they will be voting against any of the bills.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Maybe people should be informed that this already exists. It’s called Medicaid.
Hahahahahahaha. You’re not even trying today, Al.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Speaking of hacks, Al, did you see that 3 out of 10 Democrats do not favor the current plans, likely because they deem them to be too moderate? That explains why the support for the more progressive aspects of the bill — public option and the mandate — is greater than for the plans as a whole. So, if Congress is following public polling numbers, they will make sure the final bill moves to the left.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
[...] Progess’ Matthew Yglesias says, “I think the main takeaway the deeper you bore into the poll is that (as usually) [...]
October 20th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Are you sure the pool wouldn’t be big enough? What exactly would the threshold numbers be? Even if we took a small state with a 500K population and assume that 10% of the population is uninsured and only half of those would go for the public option, the numbers involved would be about 25K lives covered. My wife’s employer has roughly that number of covered lives and has a reasonably good plan that is reasonably priced.