Public Opinion and Health Care: Fearmongering on the Right

Recently, New York Times columnist David Brooks has echoed the chorus of right wing noisemakers, who claim that the public is firmly opposed to the healthcare reform efforts of President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, and that if the Democrats persist in trying to pass such legislation, they will suffer electoral disaster in 2010. Such concern for the Democratic Party by these otherwise stalwart partisan foes suggests at least a scintilla of insincerity, but the depth of that disingenuousness cannot be appreciated unless one examines more carefully the actual claims.

Brooks writes, for example, that "public opposition to health care reform is now steady and stable." He adds that according to Republican pollster, Bill McInturff, "public attitudes toward Obamacare exactly match public attitudes toward Clintoncare when that reform effort collapsed in 1994."

In fact, public support for health care reform today is substantial, even according to McInturff's own polls, and it mirrors the strong support for health care reform expressed by the public in 1994, even as the Republicans were killing President Clinton's proposals with their "no compromise" strategy.

McInturff is the Republican partner of the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, while Peter Hart is the Democratic partner. Contrary to Brooks' claim about the public's opposition to health care reform, the McInturff/Hart mid-August poll for the media organizations found 60 percent of Americans saying that the U.S. health care system needs either a complete overhaul or major reform. These results mirror those found by several other polling organizations, such as the recent poll by CBS News, which shows 82 percent of Americans saying the U.S. health care system needs either to be completely rebuilt or fundamentally changed. It's clear that Republicans in Congress do not agree with the public on this matter.

While general public support for reform is widespread, opponents of health care reform can point to polling questions that ask specifically about Obama's health care plan. Here the results show a decline in support over the past several weeks. Pollsters know that few people genuinely understand the various proposals, so typically they ask respondents to express an opinion based on "what you've heard or read." That's what the NBC/WSJ poll did, and it found 36 percent saying Obama's plan was a "good idea," with 42 percent saying "bad idea," and another 22 percent expressing no opinion.

That apparently is the basis for Brooks' contention that public opposition is now "steady and stable." But the pollsters recognize that many respondents who express an opinion do not know what Obama's plan is. So, in this case, McInturff and Hart wrote a separate question that included a brief summary of the plan. Once respondents heard what the plan was, a 10-point majority expressed support (53 percent to 43 percent). Somehow Brooks failed to mention this finding.

A similar situation prevailed in 1994, when President Clinton's health care plan was defeated. In general, the public expressed widespread support for reform. Over the course of the public debate, people became more confused about the specifics of Clinton's plan and thus more negative. Reform legislation ultimately failed in October, but Gallup polls right beforehand showed even then that more than 60 percent of Americans wanted Congress to pass health care reform -- if not that year, then the next year.

When respondents were asked, "from everything you've heard or read about the plan so far," did they favor or oppose Clinton's health care reform plan, a majority said they opposed it (55 percent to 40 percent). But the same poll showed that a stunning 70 percent admitted they needed "more information to judge the health care plans that have been proposed." And, when read a description of Clinton's plan, 61 percent were favorable toward it and only 37 percent unfavorable.

Today, we find the same confusion. When forced to express an opinion specifically about Obama's plan, most will. But if permitted, respondents will also admit that they really don't know much about it. The CBS poll, for example, reports that only a third of respondents say they understand the health care reforms being considered by Congress, while two-thirds say the proposals are confusing. Earlier, Gallup reported half of respondents saying they don't have a good understanding of the issues involved in the current debate over health care reform. In their confusion over the plan, with conflicting media reports about what it might ultimately entail, many people are cautious and express opposition. Yet, when the NBC/WSJ poll, and earlier a poll for National Public Radio, included descriptions of Obama's plan, majorities expressed support.

Because of implacable Republican opposition to health care reform, some supporters propose that Democrats consider a legislative technique in the Senate to circumvent a likely Republican filibuster, which would require 60 votes to override. Using "reconciliation," some Senate Democrats believe they could get most of the health care reform bill passed with a simple majority vote. Brooks characterizes this strategy as ignoring the "ignorant masses" to "ram health care through reconciliation."

That the "masses" may be ignorant -- or at the very least, misled -- is attested to not just by the CBS and Gallup polls, but by McInturff's own poll (with Hart). They found majorities of Americans believing -- erroneously -- that Obama's plan would cover illegal immigrants, entail a government takeover of the health care system, and provide tax dollars to pay for abortions. Close to half also believe the lie that the government would then be authorized to make decisions about when to stop medical care for the elderly. Given these widespread misperceptions, polls showing specific opposition to Obama's health care plan need to be viewed skeptically.

Still, Brooks argues that allowing for a simple majority vote in the Senate (hardly what democratic theorists refer to as "ramming") would be "suicidal." "You can't pass the most important domestic reform in a generation when the majority of voters think you are on the wrong path." But had Brooks looked carefully at the polls, he would find that most voters don't think Obama is on the wrong track. Not only do they overwhelmingly support reform, as shown earlier, but by a two-to-one margin, the CBS poll shows they also believe Obama has better ideas about health care reform than do the Republicans in Congress.

That the Democrats might actually get a health care reform bill passed worries Republicans, who believe, as did their party colleagues in 1994, that passing no health care bill will ensure a major Republican victory in the mid-term elections. Fifteen years ago, the Republican mantra was "no bill at any cost." And it worked. They crushed President Clinton's efforts to enact any health care reform, and in the mid-term elections they won majority control of the House for the first time in four decades.

Many, but not all, Democrats in Congress have learned the lesson of 1994. They know that whatever the public opinion polls show now, the party will be much weaker in the mid-term elections if it has failed to produce health care reform than if it can enact reform, even if "only" by majority vote. Taking advice from Brooks and his cohorts about what the public wants would constitute the real disaster.

 

Comments

[SolarArray]

The Republicans are disgusting.

[KingCujo]

Well said!

[MSNichols]

Once again Republicans are proving they are the party of destruction and manipulation by swaying a portion of the country into believing their lies. This to protect their corporate masters and not the American people. The Democrats in all their diversity are proving they need strong leadership or they waiver due to fear even with a mandate.

[oldngrumpy]

We have a crisis of truth in politics and if we don't do something to correct this first we will not be able to address the many issues that endanger our way of life. While both parties have taken advantage in advancing an agenda, the lengths to which the Republican party has gone to misinform borders on criminal. If it isn't criminal under existing statutes, it certainly should be.

The idea that any American who has passed public inspection to reach the level of Senator or Congress person would purposefully pull the plug on grandma is so absurd on it's face that it should not be allowed to enter political discourse. Not only has such absurdity entered the discourse, but it has become a major point of discussion over riding "real" questions about a bill's benefits. This false rationalization and misdirection will eventually bring our legislative process to a standstill. Once truth is taken off the table then the sky is the limit for what lies can be interjected into our politics.

We have very real problems to solve in the coming months and years and if we give credibility to the incredulous we will not have a chance to rationally discuss how to solve them. The issue of "Truth in Politics" will become a bigger drain on our society than health care, as it will give license to politicians to take whatever position pays the best and our government will be an open auction, if it isn't already.

[jeffrey678]

When Democratic Politicians send out their fund raising letters they should include two simple pages explaining health care reform. KEEP IT SIMPLE ! Medicare is simple and cannot be criticized without senior backlash. The marketing is already done. Medicare for all is like using judo on Republicans.

[Horus45]

That would be Single Payer and the President has said that we cannot go from the system we have now, right into a single payer system, too much change too quickly.

Once a Public Option becomes a very popular plan it will be easier to go to a single payer system.
That is why it is so important that whatever health reform passes it must have a Public Option.

[jsloan]

To understand why there needs to be a Public Option all anyone has to do is pick up a copy of The United States Constitution and just read the Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

and if that is not enough to convince you as to why we should have a Public Option then read from The Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The first right is to Life, even before the right to Liberty.

and who is responsible for securing us these rights:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

So, when someone gets up and demands to be shown where in The Declaration of Independence or in The United States Constitution the government has the right to institute a Public Option, just give them the links below

The Declaration of Independence
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html

The United States Constitution
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

[TRUE BLUE AMERICAN]

Nice try sloan, it states" promote the general welfare"-- promote, to encourage growth and developement of something,, it doesn't say you are entitled to it.

They are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can you read that and think that you are entitled to healthcare. The founders were not socialists.

[MeinNH]

They were Athiests and pagans.

[dclintn648]

"General welfare" would be not letting insurance companies deny sick people their care and be left to die. Are you so blinded by greed that you would rather get screwed by an insurance company than give up a few dollars in taxes to help a sick or dying fellow American?

[1088]

Please! The truth is that the Republican party wants President Obama to fail at everything! You know it, I know it and the World knows it too. So, they will use Racism, fear, hate, lies, smear and propaganda to achieve their goals.

[policyhack]

The private health insurance market represents a classic market failure. It's obvious to any objective observer.

See Axis of Reason:

http://axisofreason.com/2009/07/13/us-private-health-insurance-classic-market-failure/

[dennissinned]

Fearmongering is what the GOP does best.

[Harvee Wallbanger]

It is, IMHO, the only thing they do.

[Aaror]

I disagree, it is the only thing they do successfully...
The GOP has a long history of doing (failing) things like hurricane preparedness, rebuilding cities, fighting wars, finding WMD's, etc...

[rad21]

The Democrats should come out with a 5- to 10-page booklet about the plan they want to / are going to pass. And what / how will it accomplish in bringing the cost of healthcare down, improve access and quality of care. It is surprising to me that Democrats legislators still do not know what they are going to pass.

Their recent recess was billed as a "hearing" session (hearing from the constituents). Really it should have been an informational session (informing the constituents). Even today Democratic congressman on Hardball, claimed he wants to pass "the best bill possible". That is non-speak, and I am embarrassed to say he was my congressman.

To claim "Single Payer" or "Public Option" will do the needful is too vague a statement... even for Democrats.

[econ1]

Many, myself included, do think health care needs reform, but think the house bill is too vague and open to too many interpretations.

Attempts such as MA, Maine and even Canada have had some pretty negative effects that we shouldn't duplicate.

The bill should be broken into smaller ones that the Congress (and the people) can read and understand and measure the results of.

[Aaror]

I would take Canadian Health care over US care if I lost my current job.
Right now I have English style care (I work for the US government, so government doctors provide my care). Sometimes I get Canadian style care, if I need a specialist and a government doc with that specialization isn't available.

[oldngrumpy]

Understanding complex bills is what our lawmakers are paid to do. Most are attorneys, plus we provide them with a staff to do the heavy lifting for them. To think that we have to reduce our government to the level of the lowest common denominator of voters is absurd. Besides, there has been no effort to dissect the only bill available beyond grasping at individual lines and misrepresenting them for maximum effect. Until you are willing to tell your party that you will not tolerate "pulling the plug on grandma" type lies any longer there will be no attempt to understand the bill.

When your goal is "no bill of any kind" you have little incentive to properly disseminate information. If Republican representatives are having trouble understanding the bill then I can only say that is what you get when you elect people "just like us".

[dclintn648]

Ask any Canadian, like me for instance, if we would give up our single payer system and every last one of us will tell you NO! These ridiculous stories we keep hearing about how bad our system is are just more garbage from profiteers who are literally gouging your citizens to death!

[johnashman]

There's a whole lot of fear-mongering on the left. That if this isn't passed NOW, hundreds of thousands of people will die. Well, 3 million Americans die every year, bill or no bill.

[Dosadi]

The left would not know fear mongering if it tripped over it.

[valkyrie607]

Fear-mongering is when you take things that aren't a big deal and make people worry needlessly about them.

Health care IS a big deal, and worrying about our health care system is definitely warranted.

Ergo: not fear-mongering.

[PhilipTaylor]

37 Trillion Reasons to support Medicare for ALL WHO want it!

HEALTH CARE WILL COST AMERICA $37 TRILLION OVER TEN YEARS?

WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT LESS THAN 2% of THAT BLOCKING REFORM! GIVE ME a BREAK!

At Stake is $37 Trillion over ten years! INSURANCE and Health Care Industries want every DIME they can GET!

Calculations (see table below): ($5+$2.4)/2*10 = $37 Trillion

And we are worried about $600 Billion, less than 2% or 1.6%

PLUS Savings of $1.3 Trillion/10 years from uninsured NOT using Emergency Rooms!

If you want a Public Option then pass HR 676 Medicare for ALL

And ADD a clause that let people OPT OUT to buy Insurance!

100,000,000 people to 306,000,000 people in Medicare can negotiate "FAIR PRICING" for Health Care Services! Stops the FOR-PROFIT GOUGING!

It works in #1 France and it can work here!

Make MAY0 C1inic the N0RM instead of the Exception!
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________

HEALTH CARE COSTS = THE #1 THREAT TO OUR FUTURE!

$2.4Trillion spent in 2008, 17% of OUR GDP
$3.1Trillion by 2012
$4.3Trillion by 2016
$5.0Trillion by 2018

[VikingQuest]

Medicare is going bankrupt . . .

Your answer is to make it go bankrupt faster?

Medicare for all isn't logical until they can make it sustainable for the 40 million people on it now.

[ThePeacemakers]

Viking Quest...
That's why the program for health care reform should have been Medicare for all...

That would be the infusion of cash necessary.

I'm not going to die supporting private industry titans of the health insurance industry and their bonuses and private planes (you know how much health care rationing they have to do to get that?)

[ThePeacemakers]

Also, if they put their foots up the pharma companies a - - - - , you'd have hella savings.
The government needs to be able to get drugs from other countries and negotiate prices.

Medicare for all is completely logical if there weren's so many immoral orges trying to destroy it.

[Aaror]

If you told me that you had a few million dollars in the bank, but in a few years you would start spending more than you make, and projected that in 25 years you would use up the millions you had in the bank, I wouldn't call you bankrupt.
In 2011 Medicare will stop PUTTING MORE MONEY IN THE BANK, and start withdrawing from it's massive trust. Once that trust starts getting a little low, we could increase the tax rate from --1.2%-- to, say, 1.4%!!!
Are you making this argument from ignorance, or are you trying to scare people with false information?

[fallingsky]

Jan Schakowky sure knew nothing about it at her town hall when asked spefically about IRS info... NONE OF THESE LEGISLATORS KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT

[VikingQuest]

That's because they don't read what they pass before voting.

[Dosadi]

No need to read it. If you cash the check from the special interest group, then you have to vote for the bill they wrote for you. Simple huh?

[aofh]

Jan Schakowky opposes the legislation. It was in her best interest not to know about it. Otherwise, how would she convince her constituents that it is not in their best interest?

[digitalprophet]

Indeed.. At this very moment I am arguing with people who have been lied to all their lives and can't see the forest through the trees. It is frustrating that otherwise intelligent people can be brainwashed into believing whatever the Right Wing wants them to believe....

My favorite: "In fact, public support for health care reform today is substantial, even according to McInturff's own polls, and it mirrors the strong support for health care reform expressed by the public in 1994, even as the Republicans were killing President Clinton's proposals with their "no compromise" strategy."

Once the uneducated take the dive, we will have a better chance...