NYT Poll Indicates Even Republicans Back Public Option

Allies of health care reform suggest that, if enacted, a public health care option will help make health care affordable, and will get us off the path to escalating and unsustainable costs that we are on now. This idea, however, never gets much in the way of examination, because of the media's newfound obsession with spending and deficits. So, there's no policy debate on the merits. Rather, what's been captured is the big shiny battle between political sides: One side that's "ambitious," one side that wants to curb spending, and a host of compromisers, working their typical hyper-timid incrementalism. Health care reform thus becomes a shiny political arena in which to do battle, as opposed to a policy that could -- if written effectively enough -- actually benefit Americans.

But while no one in the press actually wants to play a role in helping Americans -- wouldn't be balanced, after all! -- they all want to wield opinion polls, so long as they add drama to the debate. And so what began on Morning Joe last week continued on Sunday. Back on June 18th, Joe Scarborough cited a poll that indicated Americans were more concerned with bringing down deficits than they were with additional economic stimulus, and somehow teased that out into this conclusion: "Don't you think that this puts the Obama administration behind the eight ball on health care?"

The same question was raised on multiple occasions on Sunday's shows, despite the fact that a) this poll had nothing to do with health care and b) other, just as recent polls were telling a much different story: the best way to avoid being behind the eight ball was to definitely include the public option in the health care reform package:

A new poll by a nonpartisan, D.C.-based research group finds truly overwhelming support for the public option. The kicker: The poll was bankrolled partly by previous opponents of health care reform, including one of the nation's best-known insurance companies.

The poll -- which was just released by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a D.C. policy think tank -- finds that a majority (53%) strongly back the availability of a public plan, while another 30% "somewhat" support it. That's a total of 83% in favor of a public plan -- a staggeringly large majority.

The New York Times followed up Employee Benefit Research with a poll of their own, and confirms the widespread public enthusiasm for the public option. But, via Matt Yglesias, look how these numbers break down:

Unless my eyes deceive me, these results show that even half of those deficit-hawking, spending-averse Republicans support a public health care option. Perhaps they recognize the need for it! Perhaps they are living their free market values, confident that no one will partake in a government plan that hews to the traditional inefficiencies about which they've always warned. Regardless, these are the truly eye-popping numbers. And yet, the press insists on torturing another set of poll results, pretending that the public option isn't that popular.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[Strega]

08:16 PM on 06/30/2009

I wish someone could explain the public option clearly & without bias - I'm covered through my husband's city employer & we pay in so we can visit physicans we select, have private nursing coverage, etc. If we get the public option plan how wld that affect us? I'd appreciate if anyone had a clear and honest explanation or link to one - thanks

[rumorct]

02:54 AM on 06/23/2009

Health Care Reform is a necessary however you don't do it by spending another Trillion dollars with this economy. Obama just said that we have to "pay-as-we-go with our spending." He wants US to pay the bill that the Congressional Budget Office has said would cause over 20 million to lose their coverage and was financially unsustainable. The CBO also says this would just be a down payment and it still will not cover millions. We have Medicaid, Medicare, S-Chip program, Individual/Company paid Major Medical, HMO/PPO's, Medicare supplement plans, Long Term Care and VA plans. Every state has some type of low-income programs. We don't have a problem with access. We have a problem when we are forced to pay for those that do not contribute. We have 20 MILLION illegal aliens in America. Who do you think pays for them? My medical ins. plan that I paid for 100% (no employer coverage) charged me for a circumcision that my son never had. When I called to have them take it off the bill the claims persons said, "what do you care, the insurance will pay for it". So we all just paid for his non-existent cir. via higher costs in increased premiums. This is the waste that reform can bring and this won't cost money. Gov't run care will have this mentality working with our tax dollars. You don't spend your way out of a problem.

[leftbrnrightbrn]

10:40 PM on 06/22/2009

The NYT poll is a push poll. The people queried don't know the whole story, because neither the news media nor the Democrats will allow it to be made public.

But the Democratic politicians in the house and senate know that the truth will get out, especially once a bill is proposed that will necessarily detail how the economy will be ruined.

When all is said and done, it's the people - not the current elected officials or lobbyists or corporations - who run the country, because they vote in a major election every 2 years.

[judesuper]

06:13 PM on 06/22/2009

The country has spoken. The congress and the senate need to deliver. NOW!

[enochsmoky]

06:05 PM on 06/22/2009

The only way to get "health reform" is for millions of people in the health industry to take pay cuts. The doctors, pharmacists, nurses, insurance industry, janitors, administrators and especially the blood sucking tort attorneys will have to adjust their salaries for any "reform" to work. Otherwise, there is no way to lower our medical expenditures if we are adding even half of that imaginary 45 million uninsured to the insurance rolls. Just look back at the estimates for the cost of Medicare when it was being debated back in the 60's. The real costs are higher by a factor of about 10. For all of you people with existing health plans, get ready for more taxes, higher deductibles, longer waiting periods, more denied procedures and uninspired care.

[olderdem]

05:55 PM on 06/22/2009

The MSM keeps talking about the cost of reforming health care and the Senate opposition to a a "public" option-- conflating the two. In fact the public option doesn't cost the federal government a penny, other than some upfront seed money, whicih can be recovered once the program is set up and enough people participate..

Its just an insurance option that takes out insurance profits, paid for by those that choose to adopt it. Large companies have the ability to "self insure". That means they don't pay insurance companies profits, just administration costs. Individuals and small companies don't have that ability to "self insure" and get soaked by the insurance companies.

If you have private insurance, you soon realize that as you develop certain "pre-existing" conditions the so called compeition between private insurers is non-existent as you are forced to stay with one company and pay ever increasing premiums for fear of losing coverage of that pre-existing condition if you try to find a cheaper carrrier.

[rollingdivision]

05:47 PM on 06/22/2009

Of those polled 48 percent voted for Obama, 25 percent voted for McCain. Almost 2 to 1 Obama voters. Interesting sample.

[jsgaetano]

04:34 PM on 06/22/2009

85% of America wants a public health plan.

MORE than half of all Republicans want it, meaning Republicans opposing the public plan (aka Socialism) are a minority EVEN IN THEIR OWN PARTY.

The GOP is now so out of touch, they are out of touch with themselves.

[ladyvader]

04:00 PM on 06/22/2009

If anyone can give the names of all the Senators that are not for a public option, so I can give them a call and ask this question.

Since your not for public option are you willing to give up you PUBLIC healthcare that is paid for by my tax dollars?

I did ask Sen. Graham this today and his staffer told me NO. Go figure.

[DannyDanson]

03:23 PM on 06/22/2009

Simple:

The only argument against the public options basically amounts to "If the Fed offers a public coverage plan, then private insurance companies will not not be able to continue increasing their profit margins, and attracting new investors with healthcare businesss usaul"

Not a convincing argument, once you clear up the notion that this is NOT government provided healthcare, and that there ARE differing opinions amongst MD's, that 40% of American ALREADY postpone treatment options due to cost, that businesses ARE suffering due to rising healthcare cost, and that home-owners ARE going bankrupt and defaulting mortagages due to rising healthcare costs, then the questions becomes...so what exactly should we be afraid of messing up?, and who are you actually suggesting would be underserved by a public option?

That is a question the Repugs cannot answer legitimately with validating what people already know about the GOP.....(They are more concerned with keeping those who do not need anything from Gov't happy and contributing to their campaigns than they are with resolving the heathcare crisis that strategically they cannot openly deny or admit even exists)

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

[research]

04:01 PM on 06/22/2009

I agree,
But,

"Fed" IS NOT SHORT FOR "FEDERAL"!

Fed, FED stands for the federal Reserve, a public/private hybrid.

Why do I care?

The Banksters are deliberately conflating the "Fed" and Federal to confuse people.

[barkrudedog69]

10:27 PM on 06/22/2009

The FRASER Institute of Canada in its report estimated a ''17.7 week'' wait period average across the boards for any and all medical needs.This is too long by over half and in 2007,the Canadian government in acknowlaging this problem promises shorter wait times and more streamlining of bureaucracy by ''2010'', if this is possible.

[research]

10:31 PM on 06/22/2009

BS. compare to USA delays, of course it's hard to include INFINITY delays for 50 millions people, isn't it?

[ladyvader]

03:11 PM on 06/22/2009

I just had my husband call the following Senators.

Graham-SC -He does not want a public option
Reid-NV-He does not want a public option
Martinez-FL-No Answer voicemail full. Sounds like he isn't even listening to people. No wonder he isn't running next year.
Nelson-FL-No Answer on hold forever.
Brownback-KS-They said it was un-Constitutional. My husband asked they put on the floor an amendment to allow it. No comment on that

I think I will start calling people every day. Maybe they will get the hint that Americans want a public option. I think most want single payer. I know I do.

[mfelder]

02:53 PM on 06/22/2009

i, like most people am concerned with our deficit spending, but when it comes to healthcare reform and including a public options, I say let's move forward. Heck, we are already in debt, adding healthcare reform to the deficit shouldn't make much more difference when you consider that once we do add healthcare to the growing deficit, we can then tackle our deficit problem and we will have healthcare as a bonus. ignoring the high cost of healthcare will not make the problem go away, our deficit because of healthcare out of control spending will only get worst. Besides, to get our deficit under control will take another 10 years. We've been waiting for healthcare for 40 years.

Also, when you think about it, our approving healthcare would mean that "we the people" have spoken and for the first time we can say that our voices brought down the powerful lobbying groups of the healthcare industry. This is our chance to get some lobbying influence out of Washington.

[miriamfl]

03:09 PM on 06/22/2009

What many people don't realize is the fact that if we do not offer a public option more and more companies will close their doors and take their business elsewhere. How many have not done so already? and the main reason is the cost of an american employee compared to another countries. If GM or Chrysler had not had the legacy cost problems in paying for all the employees benefits and retiree benefits they might have been able to survive this economic meltdown.

[mfelder]

03:32 PM on 06/22/2009

You're absolutely right.

[LeighAnnes]

04:55 PM on 06/22/2009

Also it would help if they had built better cars.

[olmossy]

02:37 PM on 06/22/2009

The only thing standing between the American People and Universal Healthcare /Public Option IS The Congress/Senate of the United States of America.

Who stands with America and Who stands against her?

[grace14]

01:37 PM on 06/22/2009

Americans own banks now they are the bankers and getting interest on their money put it toward Health Care what ever for all.....Americans now set the terms and all are shareholders...plus auto till they pay their debt in full....period..work with this Pres..they took your homes your jobs etc..now you control them...way to good..you put the regulations in now and demand it till they pay in full plus interest...all Americans own the banks now...like your home is not yours till the mortage is paid in full....

[grace14]

01:33 PM on 06/22/2009

Canadians never worry ever about that period.

[Opygollopy]

01:57 PM on 06/22/2009

Canadians NEVER have had to go bankrupt to get top quality health care. Americans pay up to $1000. a month - that would cover me for 3 years and 3 months. I choose my own doctor and second opinions are free - no cost for tests/MRI/CT Scans, etc. etc. Go America - get the health care you should have at a price you can afford.

If health coverage goes down, more businesses will open, more jobs will be available outside the medical field and inside as well. It will work. Make your representative work for his money again, threaten him/her with your vote next election. GIT ER DONE.

[daveincolorado]

02:05 PM on 06/22/2009

Up to $1000 a month? That would be nice!!! My COBRA is going to be just over $1400 if I stay with my current under par coverage when i retire later this year.