New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option

More than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a "choice" between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage, according to a public opinion poll released on Thursday.

A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.

But the numbers tell another story, as well.

Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."

Opponents of the president's agenda jumped on the findings as evidence that backing for the public option was dropping. Proponents responded by arguing that NBC's tinkering with the language of the question (which it had also done in its July survey) had contributed to the drop in favorability for a public plan.

SurveyUSA's poll, which was commissioned by the progressive group MoveOn.org, a proponent of the public plan, gives credence to those critiques. While arguments about what type of language best describe the public option persist --"choice" is considered a trigger word that everyone naturally supports -- it seems clear that the framing of the provision goes a long way toward determining its popularity.

In asking its question SurveyUSA used the same exact words that NBC/Wall Street Journal had used when conducting its June 2009 survey. That one that found 76 percent approval for the public option: "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance--extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?"

To ensure that its respondent pool was composed of people from similar demographics and political mindsets, SurveyUSA asked respondents a question pulled directly from NBC's August survey. The results were nearly identical.

Read a description of the president's health care plan, 51 percent of Survey USA respondents said they "favored" the approach, while 43 percent opposed it. In the NBC poll, 53 percent of respondents said they favored the president's plan, 43 percent said they opposed it.

Comments

[RZoroaster]

As Obama said last week its only one facet of the plan. A national, government regulated co-op would be pretty much just as good! I'm afraid we're overemphasizing the benefits of the public plan the way conservatives are magnifying its negatives. See this:

http://thefactofmyignorance.com/politics/all-about-healthcare-co-ops/

I'd rather have 95% of what we want than nothing at all!

[samiam5211]

Here is the question that was used to get that 77% number:

In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance-­-extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?

It is question #2 here http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693

Anyone who is being honest with themselves will clearly see that the question as written will cause more people to answer it with important. It lists two different things - the public option and their current private plan, one is wanted by one side of the debate, one is wanted by the other side of the debate.

It seems pretty clear that some of the people who answered with important were probally not in favor of the public option but were saying that it's important that they keep their private plan.

It is either carelessly or intentionally misleading for Mr Stein to write the headine in such a way that it implies that this poll proves that 77% of American;'s want a public option to be available. He put the word "choice" in quotes like that was key part of the . No, the key part of the question was making the question be one that caused some of the respondents to answer in a way that they believed was placing importance on their private insurance

[socalgal38]

I think most people are trying to be fair here, of course there are those that are dishonest and have that me me me mentality. I have not interest in the insurance companies, but I don't feel that my feelings should come in the way of someone who wants to pay the middleman for their health care.

So when both are offered as choices than I have no problem, when there is no choice that is when I feel that my rights are being violated. I think that if people would stop the fear mongering we could have a better system which is single payer.

I am only willing to compromise based on having a strong public option not having that taken away or watered down to do nothing.

[cybexg]

It is FAR less misleading than the polls showing Americans against the public option.

[mzmadmike]

I grew up in England and Canada with National Health Care. For a while, I had VA care here. The VA is adequate, if you're happy with handfuls of pills to feel better, rather than actual treatment. Canada's is okay, if you don't mind waiting a few years for "nonessential" surgery, and massive taxes. The UK isn't bad, if you don't mind incompetent doctors who can't diagnose an ectopic pregnancy and use nondissolving sutures inside.

I support choice--I believe people should be able to buy any insurance plan they wish.

I support the right of liberals to donate to create plans for themselves and others. Imagine how effective such plans would be, if everyone who wanted them bought into them.

I support the right of people who like socialist nations to move to one--Canada or the UK, perhaps.

I support the right of people who want to live longer to stop eating triple stacker $#!+burgers, smoking and drinking.

I support the right of the rest of us not to pay a trillion dollars to pay for someone else's care.

I support the right of revolution against despotic, overbearing governments.

"Liberals" support none of these things. They support stealing someone else's money to improve the "pool." How would they scream if Aetna were allowed to do that? But think how much more efficient Aetna would be with a nationwide pool! Doesn't that seem fair?

And plwood, well baby clinics still exist. Try a little research next time.

[hiddensandy]

I AM FOR FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND THAT GOES FOR HEALTH CARE ALSO. I AM TOTALLY AGAINST PRES. OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN AND I SIGNED A PETITION ACCORDINGLY1

SINCERELY,

SANDY

[cybexg]

I've worked in England (as in lived there). The health care in England is MUCH better than here in the states. Either you are really wealthy in which case you probably can buy better health care here or you simply have an axe to grind....wait...a quick review of your other posts show that you are simply biased.

For other's reading my post, please take a minute to review the previous posts of mzmadmike. You will find that he has a specific agenda that he is promoting.

[creolechild]

If you are concerned about receiving "real" health care reform in this country, please take the time to watch a video on our current system. The video was created by Oregon physicians who are advocating for the single-payer option. The video is very informative and helped me to gain a better understanding of various aspect of health care, as we know now it.

https://www.madashelldoctorstour.com/Mad_as_Hell_Video.html

These Oregon physicians are in the process of organizing a caravan designed to inform the public about the benefits of the single-payer option. At last count they will be stopping in approximately 23 states, on their way to demonstrate in Washington. They need volunteers and our support. Please spread the word.

[daybranch]

Underlying the health care opposition is that great republican lie- = the rich are penalized by excessive taxation already and if additional revenues have to be raised they must come from the middle class. This scares those who already feel taxed enough and makes them believe that if the uninsured are covered they will see large tax increases to pay for it.
What is missing is this bit of real knowledge that we should be spreading, particularlyt to those that are worried about losing their health care or absorbing large new taxes--The top 36 % percent of earners in this country pay 37% of the tax. Somehow our tax system has lost it graduation through tax dodges, and loopholes. Looks like we should make sure they put back a graduated income tax by closing loopholes etc.
I have told this to many people and they were amazed and I could see their minds working to reexamine all the bull they have been getting from Fox news and the republican lackies of the rich.

[tre 03]

This is a outright lie. I don't know who told you this, but it is grossly inaccurate.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

The National Taxpayers Union has a chart of IRS-provided information that completely debunks your claims. In fact, the top 1% paid over 40% of the personal income tax in 2007. The top 25% paid over 86%. There's a myth about tax breaks for the rich, but in reality the percentage of the tax burden paid by the top 1% has increased every year since 2001 (Bush's first year in office) and the burden shouldered by the bottom half has dropped by 25% since 2001.

[Austingal]

I saw that same statistic (top 1% pays 40% of personal income tax); then I read a little farther and learned that the same 1% earns well over 50% of the income--which means they're actually paying a lower rate than the rest of us.

[sarabono]

Survey USA is the same as MoveOn.org

Hardly an unbiased pollster.

[Frim Fram Sauce]

Where did you find that info?

[TruthmongerII]

What we want is single-payer but that isn't even on the table -- in deference to the big insurance and big pharmaceutical industries. The public option may force these sociopaths to lower their premiums and expand their coverage, but it will not be the change that will turn the economy around. It will help but not solve the fundamental problem -- the folly of considering health care a privilege, not a human right.

Money calls all the shots in this plutocracy -- our role as "citizens" is to remain hobbled by the corporate state, and to pay the bills created by corporate criminals.

[WillTell]

" the folly of considering health care a privilege, not a human right." Well said!
It is all about money, greed and selfishness, and then there are those that just don't want the Dems to succeed no, matter who suffers.

[TheShootist]

What you "clowns" never seem to understand is that it's O.K. under our Constitution to be "selfish" with one's OWN MONEY !

What gives you the right to take other's money for your views?

If you want health care to be guaranteed as a "right", propose an amendment to the Constitution...and please, don't give me that weak "promote the general welfare" argument from the preamble to the Constitution...that is the ultimate red herring!

[socalgal38]

When the United States signed the United Nations "Bill of Rights" they said Health Care is a right.

[lynettema]

Man, if we can get a strong public option, it's the way to go. The ultimate goal IS single payer, but it can't happen this early in the game. The reason the GOPers don't want public option is because they are afraid it will lead to single payer. We have to start somewhere.

[ntmessage]

So, let us take this statistic one-step further. This means that 23% oppose the option. Since Health Care is around 16% of GDP, one would think that they would oppose the option as well for obvious reasons, so that leaves us with around 7% or all Americans without a direct vested interest opposing the option. Even if you add in a few percent back for those that work in health care and support a public option, we have around 10% of Americans that oppose it because they are likely ditto heads, ignorant, gullible, stupid or insane. Sounds like almost all Americans want this public option. However they are NOT willing to let the Dems do anything they want with the bill, or they will oppose it. Especially if there is pork, no clarity or fiscally questionable issues surrounding it.

[oldngrumpy]

One has to wonder what the response would look like if all participants over 65 were taken from the stats. These are overwhelmingly low information Repugnant supporters who already have the government plan they want and everyone else can go to h3II.

One of the serious drawbacks to our political system is that those most able to be involved at this time happen to be the least informed and easiest herded into whatever corral their handlers wish them to occupy. The "greatest generation" certainly isn't the smartest. Keep in mind before you bash me here that I am well on the far side of 60. I just feel that America's elderly are stupid, crude and loud.

[ntmessage]

Well did include the gullible and I do think some elderly are less sophisticated, but who can really blame them when we pervert things within our society to a place that logic cannot exist.

[lynettema]

I'm 65. I just started Medicare (with Medicare Part B, Medicare supplemental plan and Medicare Part D). This after paying nearly $9000 a year in health care premiums for the last 6 years. I'm ultimately for single payer, but I am praying and campaigning for a strong public option so people do not have to go what I have gone through the last 6 years. The cost was just the worst part. Getting the d*** company to actually pay for anything was ridiculous. Not all of us over 65 are against HCR, just the ones who believe the RWing lies. Since most of the have been GOPers all their lives, they believe those lies.

[goodspkr]

oldngrumpy, you are a bigot. If you are over 65 you should be very worried about this. Obama has already decided to take $500 billion from Medicare to help pay for this (you do the math and increasing number of seniors and less money). You say you are on the far side of 60 but you fit into the category you set up, that is, you are stupid, crude and loud (look at your posting).

What this bill will do is ration care. There are no bones about it. Anyone who tells you it will not affect the level of care, it will decrease the cost and will not add to the deficit is a liar. And if you believe any of these you are a fool.

[tre 03]

Since GDP is not earned/created equally, your numbers are not significant. For instance...a random one percent of the population would not produce 1% of the GDP (unless you got lucky and landed one of the big player in your 1%). Besides...your argument makes no sense. % GDP cost of something is an indicator of how many legitimate, informed people should support/oppose it? That is completely ridiculous.

[ntmessage]

Understand the irrelevant point. Just using ballpark numbers yet insist they are indicative and empirical for the point made here. Those that think the exception is the rule are the ridiculous ones.

[goodspkr]

This is the most untelligible mishmash I have ever seen. Read the article again. Only 43% actually support the government option. 34% support having a choice if you have a government option, but when you take the word choice out, they fall into those opposed to it.

Now of that 43% we know 20% are brain dead liberals who this is more of sacrament than an option. That leaves us with 23% who support it. Now there is an old saying there is always at least 10% who don't get the word. That last 13% just haven't had it explained to them because no one can explain it.

[jemborg]

Wow! I'm a freedom loving Aussie and I find this paranoia over decent pubic health care amazing.

We've had it for almost 30 years.

I've expounded on this in many of Huffo's threads but let me simply say... America you deserve better, do not believe the Conservative lies.

NB: It took two goes in my country to get universal Medicare established. The Conservatives got rid of it when they got voted back in. The Labor Party re-established it at the next election after that. And although they have undermined it every time they got back into power the Conservatives don't dare try to get rid of it again. What I am getting at here is you have to push HARD for it- it's NOT going to happen through bi-partisanship.

[lynettema]

Thanks, great post. Gives me hope. If liberals and progessives don't get out and support President Obama on this - after they voted for him, it will be another 20 years before we get something done. Some of the libs and progressives seem to want all or nothing at all. That's just wrong. We have to start somewhere.

[socalgal38]

If we don't have a strong public option we are not going to get nothing but a mandate to purchase insurance at whatever they decide we should pay.

Passing anything and calling it reform is what you are suggesting. You are wrong. We need a strong public option backed by the federal government.

HR3200 does not offer a public option that will be funded after the initial funding. It will become more expensive as more people get on the public option because the premiums will have to go up. We do not have the negotiating power the government has to reduce costs. It is in the bill that the government will NOT negotiate with the public option.

HR3200 ALSO has a couple of provisions that makes it distastful. 1. the fact that there is a clause in the proposal that allows the insurance company to deny coverage based on what they conceive as fraud. The same thing they do now. 2. They can charge based on age. That is discrimination.

The fact that they put the provision for the IRS to be able to collect fines based on someone not having coverage for the yr is beyond fair. Another thing about HR3200 it only covers 97% of the AMERICAN people.

[spacecreep]

there is a percentage of americans who are swayed by polls... they don't do research for themselves, so they depend on the republican democracy.... if a poll says interpreted as saying something, then it must be because the people polled understand the issue, so i'll go with them ( the sheep).. i don't want to think differently than what i think my neighbor thinks..... i'm 61 years old and have never met or heard of anyone that knows anyone that has participated in any of this polls...
republicans do polls like they accuse ACORN of doing voter registration. they call each other..

[AvatarMN]

Waaaaaait a minute, wait a minute, waitaminute. I was really excited to hear this, then I actually looked at the poll...

Number 7 refers only to "614 Who FAVOR Plan". OF THOSE, 79% favor "STRONGLY" as opposed to favor "somewhat" or "not sure". And Number 8 refers to "511 Who OPPOSE Plan". So this is being read wrong. 614 favor, 511 don't. That's only like 54.5% in favor!

Am I right?

[AvatarMN]

Oh, wait... Number 2 is the one on the PUBLIC OPTION... Excuse me. Number 7 and Number 8 refer to other plans.

Feeling like a doofus.

[oldngrumpy]

That's alright Chuck. As long as you admit the mistake.

[PopeRatzo]

Who wants to bet that not a single television news person will ask a single Republican or Blue Dog about the fact that this poll shows 77% of Americans are in favor of a public option?

If the poll numbers on health care reform were bad, they'd be talked about constantly. But there's just no story when it comes to how much support the President's plan has from Americans.

This is why our country is so messed up.

[tre 03]

That's because 77% of the people are not in favor of the plan known as "the public option". 77% of the people are in favor of being able to choose between "the public option" and private insurance, but we don't know which one people would choose. When asked specifically about "the public option", support drops to 43%. Even if you're not a fan of the NBC poll, the SurveyUSA poll still has support for the President's health plan at 51%.

[heartsick]

If a public option is not included in the bill, which is what the GOP wants, there is no choice. No other polling data is relevant. Americans (77 percent) want a choice that includes the ability to choose or not choose coverage under a public option. Get it?

[ColoradoArtLover]

Yes, this should be on the front page of the Huffington Post as well as distributed to other news sites. Gooooo Obamacare!!!

[WOODGUN]

here's another one - very funny!(maybe)

the WH, now that they were forced to cancel their "rat-on-a-friend for fishy thoughts" program due to its illegality, they have come up with another chicago-style maneuver (illegal also) - they have sent a letter to all insurance companies demanding a bunch of info (some illegal by privacy law provision) in order to try to intimidate them into supporting an unsupportable bill - lawyers for the cos are telling them to tell the WH to go shovel dung - what next from these nazifascists????

[sugarpops]

....and your point is???

[tre 03]

I think I've made my stance pretty clear on here by now, but I don't think the email thing was as bad as people made it out to be. Let's say you heard some rumors about you that you felt weren't true. Wouldn't you want to find out who was spreading the rumors so you could set them straight? If it was more than that then yeah...there's a problem. But I'm not sure there's evidence that it was anything nefarious.

[swg63]

Rat on your friend? Have you forgotten that the Bush admin. recorded every e-mail,cell phone , web search,and what you looked at on the internet?

[heartsick]

This is just another insurance company inspired example of "Bearing false witness." LOL

[plwood01]

You can thank Bush and Cheney for Big Brother watching you...perhaps someone felt that Obama could use some of those same tactics, let's see, I believe that was Dick Cheney who said that after the inauguration when people were looking at him regarding "water boarding." Did you call Bush and Cheney nazifascists while they were wrecking the economy and taking our jobs away?

[tre 03]

That's a little ridiculous. Two people wrecked the economy and took your job away? And they did that with their spying program? Wow. That program was way more powerful than I knew.

This kind of argument never helps a cause because if it was wrong for Bush and Cheney then it's wrong for Obama and Biden.

[sunnybunny]

Is there another meaning for the word "option" that I'm not aware of?

[Susanfrom29]

Only in the Fox news lexicon.

[plwood01]

If option is not clear what about choice, no that doesn't work either, what about selection then? We could have a single payer healthcare program that allows us to select from various plans! There, that should work just fine...

[lynettema]

LOL