I've heard all the arguments about health care reform. I've heard the sob stories and the sober financial arguments and the comparisons to Europe and the complaints about the insurance monopolies and government corruption. All of it has some validity and all of it tends to leave out one key fact. The American people don't want health care reform and they particularly don't want reform based on the proposals currently being circulated by Democrats in Congress.
In the last six months of polling on the health care issue, Rasmussen has shown a remarkably consistent strong opposition to health care reform. With 25 polls in six months, only one showed a bare positive level of support, and as recently as a week ago support for health care reform had dropped to an all-time low of 38% with a clear 56% opposition. The secondary figures are even more negative with 50% say they believe reform will lead to a decline in health care and only 18% anticipate any improvement at all.
The Rasmussen results are similar to other polls. Gallup has 42% against the health care reform and only 35% for it. Fox has 51% against and only 35% for it. CBS has 45% against and 40 for. CNN has the closest result with 49% opposed and 46% for. By any measure and in every poll the people oppose the ideas of health care reform which are currently being considered.
It could be that they're way more concerned about something else than they are about health care.
Now and since the spring when the Congress and administration began spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave, the overwhelming primary concern of the people has been the state of the economy. In the latest CNN poll it runs 30 points ahead of health care at 47% to 17% among "problems and priorities." Health care even drops to third behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the Gallup poll.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
Health care reform and the wholesale government takeover of the system that the Dems have proposed are two entirely different things.
Most Americans support the former.
The latter will be the undoing of the PEEPELS PARTY OF AMERIKA.
2 - Christine
Dave, it has been very clear (for a long time) that the Dems don't give a darn what the "people" want. They are more interested in the "redistribution of wealth" then they are about the health of American people and our nation as a whole.
3 - Aussie
F.ck, Americans are weird.
4 - Ruvy
Dave,
How many articles have you written about this garbage? Do you see how these polls seem to reflect what I've been telling you since the idiots started gabbing about what your sitting administration calls "health care reform?"
Leaving all ideology aside, you cannot afford to have universal health care. Those words come not from an opponent of universal health care, but a proponent of it. And the American people, at least from the polls you cited, seem to agree.
5 - Dave Nalle
Ruvy. We could afford real health care reforem - a plan based around cutting costs anmd improving regulation and access. But you and the American people are dead right that we cannot afford the travesty currently under consideration.
Dave
6 - Glenn Contrarian
It does not matter what the Dems propose...because whatever they propose, the Republicans will claim that it will lead America to utter ruin.
This is known as politics.
Of course it's interesting to note that the illegal and unprovoked Iraq war - once we pay off the Chinese - will have cost FAR more than even the most expensive health reform initiative yet proposed by the current administration.
But I forget - it's more patriotic to wage illegal war on credit borrowed from our enemies than it is to provide health insurance for all Americans...especially when the war is more expensive than the health care.
7 - Lumpy
Nice try at misdirection from the obamian shill.
Great article. But if they aren't listening to the American people they sure aren't listening to you.
8 - Aussie
Glenn's right (up to a point).
While I'm not sure about a certain war being illegal (although one of 'em probably hasn't been done too well in retrospect), there is one glaring anomaly here that begs to be pointed out: a certain political knee-jerk oriented section of the American public thinks it's fine for the US government to spend many, many billions of taxpayer dollars (or more accurately borrowed bucks from China and the oil- producing nations) on a conventional military that no longer has any real enemies ... but spending a fraction of that looking after the immediate wellbbeing of its people somehow heralds the arrival of that dreaded "socialism" (does anyone in that part of the world really understand what socialism is??) and thus the end of the world as we know it.
The lopsided provision of health care in the US is a disgrace - no other word for it. It's archaic and unfair, particularly in the way it imposes such a burden on ordinary Americans and US businesses, although it's true that Americans should at least be offered a choice when it comes to healthcare.
Still, this whole debate is another classic case of some in America getting their priorities wrong, and a textbook illustration of the delusion that blinds some Americans to the truth based on the notion of: If we didn't invent it, it can't be any good.
If you get a ramped-up public health system that's far from perfect, that'll be an improvement wouldn't you think ... because the one you've got now is absolute and utter crap.
9 - Dave Nalle
If you get a ramped-up public health system that's far from perfect, that'll be an improvement wouldn't you think ... because the one you've got now is absolute and utter crap.
'
Except that this ill-informed opinion is just more fodder for the left's lie machine.
In fact, the US system merely operates on a different paradigm from the more common approach and it is no better and no worse.
The approach taken by most countries is to supply healthcare at a 20% lower level of quality to all citizens. The approach taken by the US is to supply 86% of the population with superior care and 14% with very little care except at the most dire extreme. Both approaches only provide a portion of the amount of care which would be ideal. They just divide the care up differently based on different priorities.
And remember, Aussie, we don't deny care to those who are truly needy. If you're poor in America you get excellent care from Medicaid. Our problem is with the 8% who choose not to be insured and the 6% who earn too much for medicaid and too little to insure themselves. That 6% are the ones who are the main legitimate issue here and the irony is that the massive, draconian and expensive Democrat bill STILL doesn't address the needs of that group of about 18 million people.
Dave
10 - Aussie
For starters, Dave, this is where you and I differ: first, I don't see the provision of health care as being anything to do with the left.
America's system is an anachronism in the club of western developed economies.
All the fear of it is just fear of fear itself. It hasn't harmed our economy here in any way, shape or form (Australia's was the only one of the developed western economies not to go into recession and to actually grow during the Global Financial Crisis, so we must be doing something right here even with all our "socialistic" tendencies.)
I say just go with something workable that provides universal health care to all citizens, while giving Americans who can afford it the choice of getting private health insurance to top it up (mine costs about $3000 a year on top of the $2000 extra I pay in taxes for public cover) and gain access to private hospitals or their own rooms and own choice of doctors in public hospitals.
That's about US$4500 (on a single income of around $US150,000 - which is now pretty much an ordinary income in this state given the high cost of living and of servicing a mortgage here), but there are no panels of people deciding whether they'll meet my costs, and there are no out-of-pocket costs.
And if I end up in emergency care, there's no paperwork at all ... they just Medicare me.
You need to do something there that removes the uncertainties for Americans - that is the key issue.
Here's a scenario I'm sure you've thought about.
An American loses his or her job, or in your case Dave you lose all your work and can't pay your cover, then you're dependent on a public system in the US that sits on the very fringes of what's acceptable medical care. If you're lucky, you might get looked after.
And all that after a lifetime of paying taxes.
You deserve something better for your money.
I can tell you from experience that all the same arguments were put up when we moved from an American system to a European system in the mid-70s.
The sky didn't fall in, and it actually created more jobs as the health insurers moved to offer more peripheral services as part of basic cover. In the 30-plus years since, it's take a lot of tweaking.
Like I say, it's far from perfect but it works.
And it makes for a lot of happy campers who see the provision of health care as part of the return they get - deserve - from the government dipping into their paypackets every week. There are also government safety nets all over the place, especially for people who need to see a doctor regularly. They might be a few bucks out of pocket for the first few visits each year but then the safety net kicks in. My wife, for isntance (who works in one of the world's top heart/lung transplant hospitals ... free care there too for all its transplant patients) sees a doctor every two weeks. He charges $220 a visit. She gets $180 back from Medicare the first few visits, then she's covered %100 for the rest of them.
She pays the doctor cash, then when she's doing the shopping she walks into the Medicare office and gets the whole lot back in cash.
It kind of takes the sting out of it and ends any worry about "will I or won't I".
This is the anachronism in America: not about health care as a profit-making business (why shouldn't it be) but about the fact that people can slip into bankruptcy if they get sick, or can't afford it all and get second-rate care.
And socialism it's not.
11 - handyguy
For someone who asks, rhetorically, why we are even talking about health care reform, Dave Nalle has expended a stupefyingly vast number of electrons in the last 4 months...talking about health care reform.
His arguments have shifted with the wind, and their only consistent purpose has been to oppose whatever the administration proposes.
No one, in this land of plenty, should go bankrupt because of health expenses -- a situation unthinkable in Europe or indeed in every other wealthy country on earth. That's the core of why we need health care reform, and the sanest basis for discussing the issue.
As for the polls, which Dave selectively uses only when they [seem to] back his argument [whichever one of the several arguments he happens to be declaiming about at the time]:
The answers vary widely with the wording of the questions.
For example, a nationwide Quinnipiac poll conducted shortly after the House passed its bill asked: “Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?” Fifty seven percent said they supported the option, while 35 were opposed.
But when asked how they felt about the overall bill, 51 percent disapproved of it and 35 percent approved.
As with most polling, the results about the public option vary with how the question is asked.
CBS News found in August that if the word “Medicare” was part of the question - would respondents support a government-run plan “similar to Medicare, that people age 65 and older receive” - support jumped by 7 percent.
[From the New York Times]
12 - Dave Nalle
Aussie, your ignorance of the American system is rivaled only by your ignorance of European health care systems.
Your system in Australia is vastly and fundamentally different from the systems in much of Europe and actually closer to the system currently in use in America.
I've advocated in the past switching the US to something more like the Australian system as a better alternative to the disastrous systems found in Europe.
An American loses his or her job, or in your case Dave you lose all your work and can't pay your cover, then you're dependent on a public system in the US that sits on the very fringes of what's acceptable medical care. If you're lucky, you might get looked after.
And all that after a lifetime of paying taxes.
But I haven't spent a lifetime paying taxes for medical care. I've spent only the taxes to pay for medicare and medicaid which have very restrictive qualifications. If I had been paying taxes for universal coverage then I certainly would have a complaint, but I haven't been.
Look. What you have in Australia is a system where you have universal basic coverage paid out of taxes and then can buy supplemental insurance above and beyond that. It's a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem and would probably work just fine here in America. It's far superior to the systems in Europe because it preserves choice and competition yet still guarantees everyone basic coverage. It does not have the problems with rationing of care, denial of care and lack of resources you find in Canada and Europe.
The bill under consideration in our Congress right now does not give us anything like the system you have in Australia or like the systems in Europe. It's just a giant bailout for trial lawyers and insurance companies. This is why we're so unhappy with it. It's not reall health care reform.
dave
13 - Arch Conservative
Handy...Dave's argument is nuanced. I thought you John Kerry loving libs got nuance.
In any event his arguments are better than the outright lies and propaganda coming from your side. Pretty much every major poll shows that the majority of Americans, while supporting reform of the system as a general notion, oppose the bloated, unconsitutional House Bill that was passed.
I know you come from the modern American left wing school of politics where the bread and butter play is to repeat a lie often enough and loud enough (ie anthropogenic global warming) so that becomes accepted as truth.
It's not going to work this time. Get over it
14 - Arch Conservative
Correct me if I'm wrong Aussie but you guys don't have a nation just south of you from which millions of people emigrate illegally every year only to come to your nation to take advantage of all your social welfare programs without actually contributing into the system........
15 - Jordan Richardson
without actually contributing into the system........
Yeah, those undocumented workers aren't doing shit for your system......
16 - Andy Marsh
Hello people...it's been a while.
Dave, I just have to say that I resent the comparison of the federal govt to us drunken sailors. Besides the fact that no drunken sailor ever had a checkbook like congress does, we always spent our money on useful things like booze and hookers!
17 - Dave Nalle
As for the polls, which Dave selectively uses only when they [seem to] back his argument [whichever one of the several arguments he happens to be declaiming about at the time]:
Handy, the poll you cite -- which I only left out because it's not central to this particular argument -- also supports my general position. I don't disagree that people want health care reform. I'm for it myself. But the people absolutely do not want THIS bill and with good reason.
Dave
18 - STM
Dave writes: "But I haven't spent a lifetime paying taxes for medical care."
Isn't that preceisely the point being mae though?
You pay similar taxes to what we pay here, and if we get sick, lose our jobs, whatever, we get decent care. We certainly don't have to worry about being bankrupted by medical bills. It's the same in Europe.
You don't have that luxury.
What you mainly get for your tax dollar is a huge, unwieldly conventional military that no longer has any conventional unwieldy wars to fight.
Shave even just a bit off that budget, and focus the military on the kind of wars it is actually fighting, and you get a decent health care system for everyone.
As for Arch's comment about illegal immigrants, true, we don't have anything like the numbers ... although we do get our fair share.
People smuggling is huge business in this part of the world and Australia is a favourite destination. Asylum seekers make their way to Indonesia (just to the north of us) and head into Australian waters on leaky boats. We've had something like 50 boatloads arrive in the past few months alone, so that our immigration detention centres, particularly the offshore one on Christmas Island, are bursting at the seams.
We have had to enlist the support of other governments to deal with it. The Australian government has recently financed and built one detention centre in Indonesia to process (and return to their country of origin if need be) any asylum seekers headed for Australia. The centres are pretty reasonable places too; they're not like jails.
And that's not to mention the many thousands more who arrive by plane.
19 - handyguy
I don't disagree that people want health care reform. I'm for it myself.
Trying to reconcile this with the title and premise of your article could make one very dizzy.
20 - Dr Dreadful
Correct me if I'm wrong Aussie but you guys don't have a nation just south of you from which millions of people emigrate illegally every year
Arch, there's absolutely nothing 'just south of' Australia - or indeed anywhere south of Australia until you come to sunny Antarctica.
Perhaps it's the penguins - of which Australia is home to quite a number. Those freeloading feathery bastards.
21 - handyguy
And I continue to believe that the vast majority of independent, centrist voters who oppose the health plan do so because they fear it will cost too much. And because they believe it will benefit someone else, but not themselves. [In other words, it will help poor people, not middle class people.]
The CBO's analysis of the bill does not bear these fears out. But when enough negative noise is generated about legislation, some of it will sink in, whether it's true or just bogus.
22 - handyguy
Maybe Arch was referring to all those millions of New Zealanders who can't wait to leave their homeland, with its ugly landscapes and terrible weather. And beaucoups hobbits and elves running around.
23 - Dr Dreadful
Not to mention its appallingly inept rugby team. ;-)
I realise that Arch was referring to Mexico, whose itinerant population keeps the economy of several southern states functioning. Despite what anti-immigration folks often claim, I've yet to meet a US citizen who pines to go to work picking grapes.
At least the US isn't in danger of agricultural collapse like Japan, which is desperately trying to find technological solutions to growing food because nobody wants to farm or fish any more.
24 - STM
Handy: "Maybe Arch was referring to all those millions of New Zealanders who can't wait to leave their homeland>
Actually, despite how good New Zealand is, there are huge numbers of Kiwis in Australia. They have the right of abode in Australia, and it's reciprocal. You now have to get a visa, but for many years NZ and Australian citizens could travel between the two countries as if they were one. Bastards can play footy (oval ball!)though, as Doc points out. If you play against Kiwis, you always come out sore and sorry. My last go round against a team of New Zealanders was pretty rugged ... black eye that I couldn't see out of for a week, fat lip, scratches and sprig marks all over my body, hobbling to work on the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday from being broken in half in tackles ... they are good people though.
There are quite a lot of Americans migrating down here too lately. An American-born minister in the state government as we speak is tilting for the office of Premier. Not bad. She's a big chance of getting it too.
At my local suburban shopping mall, it's nothing to here an American accent anymore.
You hear them all the time, now. Poms (Brits anyway) and Irish are ten a penny and no one notices because, after all, they formed the backbone of this nation. And a few suburbs away, about a 10-minute drive, there's a mall where pretty much the only accent you'll hear is South African.
Oh, and did I mention Arabs, Chinese and Indians. Plenty of them too, although many of the Chinese it has to be said are from British Commonwealth countries: Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong, so they don't have a problem fitting in or understanding our cultural values and most have grown up with English as a first language or as the de facto national language.
The Vietnamese community is among the most-liked of all the migrant groups and they've brought French-style bakeries and great Vietnamese food. Fitting in is more difficult I think for people from mainland China (be good if they tried harder) to understand what our culture is about, especially the concept of a free democracy, although their children become Aussies pretty quick.
And it's also more difficult for the rest of us when they get behind the wheel of a car ...
25 - Joanne Huspek
The problem with "health care" is that the typical American doesn't view it as a necessary expense. They expect it's a right to get it from their employer or their government. A family would not expect their employer or their government to buy them a car, gas to put into it or their groceries. (Hmm... I should take that back if the new Socialist state ever pans out.) If attitudes would change and people started looking behind how much care costs, they would be in a rightful uproar, as I am since I'm self-insured. (Case in point, an insured person's flu vaccine is $65. A person walking in off the street with no insurance pays $25.) The employers aren't going to look into rising costs, that's for sure.