Poll: Voters Reject Health Care Mandate Without Public Option, Medicare Buy-In

EDITOR'S NOTE: The story below includes references to polling conducted by the firm Research 2000. The reliability and accuracy of Research 2000's polling has since been called into serious question by a report published in June 2010 by a group of statistical analysts.

A new poll suggests that voters are not pleased by the idea of health insurance mandates without a public option or a Medicare expansion.

Conducted by Research 2000 for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America (DFA), the survey finds only 33 percent of likely voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance. Slightly more Democrats -- 37 percent -- favor the idea, while only 30 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents do.

Meanwhile, if the public option and Medicare buy-in are added, 58 percent of people support the idea. The number of Republican supporters drops to 22 percent, but independent support rises to 57 percent and Democratic support to a whopping 88 percent.

"This poll shows voters in full-blown revolt against the Senate bill," said PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor. "Only one-third of voters support mandates without a public option, while nearly two-thirds want the public option and Medicare expansion. This will be a disaster of epic proportions for Democrats in 2010 if it's not fixed -- fast."

The same poll found that the White House message that the bill provides 30 million uninsured people with coverage is not selling. Only 36% of respondents thought requiring uninsured Americans to buy health insurance, and giving some people subsidies to help afford it, was the same as providing coverage for those 30 million.

Another recent poll commissioned by the PCCC and DFA found that one third of Democrats are less likely to vote in 2010 if the health care bill does not contain a public option.

Working off these results, the PCCC has a petition out urging Senators Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Roland Burris, and Sherrod Brown to "stand strong and block any 'compromise' without a strong public option." Over 65,000 people have signed so far.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[epcraig]

04:32 PM on 12/21/2009

I prefer single payer, will accept a public option, and abhor abusive insurance monopolies.
Because my senators disagree I'll vote against them next time they show on my ballot.
At least my representative can get my vote.

[Forrester1]

09:52 AM on 12/21/2009

Quit calling this health care reform!
It is insurance reform, not healthcare reform.
The AHA won't allow real health care reform, even though that's what we really need.

[Kevins]

05:21 AM on 12/21/2009

Mandate? The mandate they should be thinking of is the one from the American voters who voted for Reform.

These numbers make perfect sense to me.
I'm one of those Democrats who is not celebrating this bill--that I expected to be estatic about.

And I am not at all convinced that "reform" means for-profit insurance companies--which will remain exempt from anti-monopoly laws as they are now--gobbling money without competition.

If you force everyone to buy insurance, you HAVE to provide a genuine non-profit option. A public option.
This has, in fact, killed my enthusiasm for all "change" reform. Being denied the public option has left me with a deep disgust for the process.

[RobertFromMN]

03:53 AM on 12/21/2009

What I want to know, preferably from someone with a law degree, is this: Is it even legal for the government to compel people to buy health insurance from private insurance cartels? It seems unconstitutional to me. A government run plan is a different matter, but to force people to do business with private industry cannot possibly be legal. And this argument that it'll be like forcing people to have car insurance doesn't hold weight. There is public transportation. People can ride bicycles, take trains, taxis, etc. (What percentage of Manhattanites drive?) People can avoid having to buy car insurance by choosing not to drive. How can they legally avoid health insurance?
I keep wanting to use the word "racketeering". The blatant nature of the corruption is stunning.

[klarason]

06:41 AM on 12/21/2009

I agree. They make us buy car insurance from them. When they could just be collecting a pay at the pump tax to cover us on the roads instead.

[happykiddo]

09:05 AM on 12/21/2009

well, it seems unfair to pay for someone elses "accidents" with my funds. Its probably best to keep the policy to give incentives for individuals to save more money with good driving.

and for those who can't afford it? government subsidies like food stamps. would work better. unfortunately you are always going to have people in need.

[Gerald Bowman]

07:35 PM on 12/21/2009

I agree wholeheartedly. Expect a legal challenge to this provision. It would be a stretch to justify the constitutionality of this provision that requires all citizens to buy health insurance. Congress has the constitutional power to tax. But, this is entirely different. I suspect the Supreme Court will shoot down this mandatory provision. But, I am not a constitutional law scholar. Hope this helps.

[jemiltd]

11:09 PM on 12/20/2009

Today, I sent this message to all of my Congress people and a few of yours. Welcome to use and do the same...: I am of the belief that the President cannot evoke change without Congress helping him to do so. Therefore I will be looking for an Al #Franken mentality to vote for in 2010 and going forward. We need representation that is genuinely for the people of this country not for partisan schoolyard games by good ole' boys. By the way, if you aren't for #HCR, I respectfully and publicly request that you relinquish your government provided health insurance and buy your own out of your own pocket. That would be the right thing to do; hypocrisy does not look good on you.

[mensaniam]

10:51 PM on 12/20/2009

Rasmussen polls always lean toward the conservative right-wing opinion. In all fairness, I'm not sure the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America (DFA) are unbiased either because their names suggest their results would lean in the other direction.

[maxwells]

10:49 PM on 12/20/2009

To those who still regard this bill as a feeble but first step toward real health care reform. No, it isn't. This is fraud and you're being punked.

This Senate bill is worse than nothing, not just because it does nothing to curtail out-of-control insurance premiums but because, much like Medicare Plan D, it sets up yet another vehicle to funnel taxpayer money to private insurance companies. Instead of some combo of group cost savings and wider coverage under a public option, you'll be forced to pay 'protection' to the insurance racket, as this bill criminalizes those who refuse to buy into the swindle.

I.e., the non-participation sanction only made sense when coupled with a non-profit, public option, because it was a way to lower overall costs immediately by forcibly widening the pool size. But if the funds are instead funneled to private insurance corporations, those savings sought thru economies of scale will simply go to larger exec salaries, advertising, lobbying funds, and corporate profits. So, the same non-participation sanction then becomes just a vehicle to enforce an extortion racket that provides no real benefits.

The Senate is hoping that most people are too dumb or apathetic to see through this scam. Don't you be one of them.

[Forrester1]

09:59 AM on 12/21/2009

60% of Americans are clueless about many things, and the % opposed to healthcare reform are a subset of this group.
This legislation is passing because the Dems are desperate.
They have backed down on abortion, backed down on a public option, backed down on a single payer, backed down on real systemic reform, backed down from the insurance companies, and backed down from big-pharm.
They are bought and paid for by big business and the AHA.
What did we really expect?

[Habib2297]

10:35 PM on 12/20/2009

Rassmussen shows:
Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes.

[bigguy1231]

10:50 PM on 12/20/2009

I guess that means Americans want the schools shut down as well, after all they are paid for by taxes and run by government. The school system seems to be quite useless, since it educates morons to vote against their own interests.

[Cheryl Layos]

11:14 PM on 12/20/2009

I do believe you just hit the proverbial nail on the head.

[Habib2297]

11:34 PM on 12/20/2009

I do not see any polls that say Americans want their public schools closed. I see that a reputable polling site states that a majority of voting Americans do not want a larger government. Why do you resort to name calling and impunging people's characters? That has no place in an open and honest discussion. Please refrain from guessing. Facts are immutable.

[Habib2297]

10:33 PM on 12/20/2009

The most recent Gallup shows 46% in favor, 48% against this Healthcare bill.

[scaramouche]

10:16 PM on 12/20/2009

So polls show that the public favors a public option. No kidding, Sherlock. Trouble is 680 lobbyists and 600 million dollars to the pigs at the troth trumps the polls. Does anyone seriously think John Q. citizen has a say in this government?

[kate99]

10:12 PM on 12/20/2009

i first noted this poll on fox but there headline on there bar at the bottom of the screen was voters turn against heath care reform yet again a half truth

[Fedupwiththemall]

07:38 PM on 12/21/2009

How do you figure it's a half truth. What part of "we don't want the government involved in our health care" don't you understand?

[suzjazz]

11:33 PM on 02/05/2010

If you don't want the government involved in your health care, I guess you want to forfeit Medicare when you turn 65. And you want veterans, who risked their lives for America and lost their limbs and sanity, to pay for their own health care because the government doesn't owe them anything for their sacrifice.

[treat2day]

09:37 PM on 12/20/2009

HOSE AGAIN, please!

Extra Payments to Medicare Advantage to Total $11.4 billion in 2009

$43 billion in extra payments have been made to private Medicare Advantage plans since 2004

Private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans will be paid $11.4 billion more in 2009 than what the same beneficiaries would have cost in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program, according to a new report released today by The Commonwealth Fund. This new analysis, The Continuing Costs of Privatization: Extra Payments to Medicare Advantage Plans Jump to $11.4 Billion in 2009, estimates that since MA was enacted in 2004, $43 billion in extra payments have been made.

In the report, Brian Biles, professor of health policy at George Washington University and colleagues find that extra payments to MA plans will amount to an average of $1,138, or 13 percent over fee-for-service costs, for each of about 10 million Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. The $11.4 billion in extra payments in 2009 represents a 34 percent increase over 2008 payments, which totaled $8.5 billion. According to authors, the steep one-year increase was due to the increase in payment rates and enrollment in the private MA plans.

http://www.disabled-world.com/medical/healthcare/us-medicare/medicare-advantage-plans.php”

[OswegoKayaker]

09:29 PM on 12/20/2009

Without a public option or Medicare buy-in any fine for not having healthcare is just another gift to the insurance industry. A HUGE GIFT. They got more than they expected -- windfall would be the term. If it happens before Christmas they can put a big bow on the bill and consider it the biggest gift to them ever. All those hapless people having to enroll in their plans just as they raised them sky high -- and probably will take the rates into orbit now that people are handcuffed to them. I bet a lot of champagne corks will be flying off very expensive bottles when this thing gets signed.

[treat2day]

08:14 PM on 12/20/2009

no mass enrollments for lobbyist and insurance companies

If you want to win, you will ORGANIZE.

You will organize in the same way the Right has done for the last 40 years, and you will spend money on persuasion, where it really matters. You will, in short, make the politicians as afraid of you as they are of them. The Right has built vast networks of think tanks, newspapers, periodicals, cable news channels, and political advocacy organizations to spread their finely tuned, well-honed messages. Their politicians may fail them, and their actual policies may be deeply unpopular, but their message machine nearly always works its magic to get them what they want, even when Democrats are in power.

That's partly because the American political Right never quits and never gives up. They know that organization is the key to their success, and they don't trust politicians to do their work for them. Democrats, on the other hand, get disappointed and quit when our politicians don't pan out the way we wanted.

That's why we lose.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/16/815429/-No-One-Is-Going-To-Save-You-Fools

[cybexg]

08:29 PM on 12/20/2009

There is a great difference between what the Right will do and what the non-Right will do. The Right seems willing to go to any length, no matter what the cost is, no matter what the harm is, no lie is too black, no evil to great. Just look at the debate over health care reform. Just think of all the lies, all the distortions, all the harms the Right committed.

[TekVahana]

04:14 AM on 12/21/2009

Smear and fear has carried them this far.

In 2000 they ramped it up from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to Fear, Uncertainty, Confusion and Doubt.

So it's gone from FUD to .... well, pronounce it how you like.

[Fedupwiththemall]

07:40 PM on 12/21/2009

What debate the Dems did everything behind closed doors? Last time I checked that would be the left making up all those lies and distortions. By the way, I don't like the Republicans either. I think all of Washington is corrupt.

[dmnolan]

10:04 PM on 12/20/2009

Well said.

[Baja]

07:47 PM on 12/20/2009

Just Fines for not patronizing private insurers? Well, what if one refused to pay the fine...imposed by the IRS? What if one refused to pay Late Fees on the penalty?

How far would that go? Would the IRS put a lien on your house, attach salaries or capture tax refunds? Would one go to jail as a Tax Scofflaw?

This is about government violating Fifth Amendment prohibitions on govt compelling speech (with exceptions). Any Congress Member supporting this may violate their sworn-paid duties to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

That the penalty phase is given to the IRS is the cute and clever trick. Insurers needn't hire Collection Agents. The IRS will do that for them...on our dime. We MAY, by law, be Compelled to Speak to tax officials (or Grand Juries, Draft Boards, etc.)…whereas it is illegal for the govt to compel speech to private insurance or any business...specifically if there’s no acceptable options.

States compel car owners to buy insurance...but that's Constitutional (?) because there's no govt compulsion to drive. One can walk, or bike, to carry their grandmother to the doctor. With health care...the "options" are...A) leave the country, B) deplete assets to below mandate level, or C) die.

Officials who push this are AWOL from their duties...and may be criminally accepting pay for the public-serving things they refuse to do and work against. That's called Theft of Wages, for starters.

[OswegoKayaker]

09:45 PM on 12/20/2009

The real fine will be death. The private insurers will raise their rates and more hospitals will become privately owned and not have to accept patients they don't want. How many died before their time because they were ill-served by the healthcare system before -- now with this -- how many people will not be able to afford the ever escalating rates these companies will charge and not be able to afford the fines if they don't. It will be a catch 22. The insurance companies are the real death panels in this country. Ask anyone denied coverage because they got sick. Now they won't be able to do that but not a word on how much they get to charge if you get sick. A lot of people pay staggering amounts for insurance now -- because they have a family member with a very serious illness. Medical bills are one of the biggest reasons for personal bankruptcy in this country. Add all the drugs that people can't afford because we don't have an advocate here like Canada and almost ever other civilized country and so pay the highest amount for drugs in the world and you have the perfect storm -- grocery store or pharmacy -- hard decision for a lot of people.

[suzjazz]

11:42 PM on 02/05/2010

You said it, Oswego. Great summary of the situation. A lot of people apparently don't realize that
1) we are spending ourselves into bankruptcy with medical bills the insurance companies won't cover
2) people are dying--thousands of them--not from some fictional "death panels," but because insurance companies refuse to cover their cancer treatments.
3) It would cost us LESS if the government paid for our health care, or at least paid for the health care of a portion of the population. If taxes are increased to pay for it and spread out over 300 million taxpayers in the U.S., it will not be anywhere near the amount I pay every year for health insurance. I get over $400 a month taken out of my paychecks for a PPO that only covers 80% of my bills. The 20% I pay was $3000 last year. (and typically costs this much because I have a chronic eye condition) There is NO WAY that a tax increase is going to cost me more than that.
Do the math, people!