When protesters marched on washington a few weeks ago, one of the most common rallying cries was that congress was disconnected from the opinions of the American people.  They argued that Americans were outraged that congress was (among other things) shoving a healthcare bill down American’s throats that they don’t want.  I found this to be a curious charge, considering the bipartisan calls for healthcare reform that have grown louder over the last few decades.  But maybe the protesters had something there.  Perhaps it’s true that congress has become disconnected from what mainstream Americans want out of all this healthcare reform talk.  Fortunately, a few polls have been released recently which give us some insight into how the public feels about the public option , perhaps the most famous, most misunderstood, and most contentious element of the healthcare plans proposed thus far.

First up is an ABC news poll released Sept 14th, shortly after the president’s healthcare address.  The entire poll is interesting (found here) but in regards to the public plan the numbers were close but clear:

“On specifics in the health care plan, 55 percent support a so-called public option, with 42 percent opposed – slightly less opposition than in last month’s 52-46 percent division, but still shy of the initial reaction in June, 62-33 percent support.”

Notice the reference to numbers from earlier in the summer, when support for the public option started out strong, and then dipped significantly in popularity through July and August.  Clearly the townhall protests, the “death panels”, the abortion furor, and the numerous other healthcare reform myths had taken their toll.  So was the slightly aleviated opposition after Obama’s speech a blip on the radar or a sign of a turning tide?

If the recently released NYT/CBS poll is to be believed then the tide has turned indeed.  Here are their numbers on the public plan:

What surprises me most is that they threw “like medicare” into the language of the question which, in my opinion, makes the public option seem more socialistic than it actually is, and still the result was dramatic.  Perhaps some of this increase in support can be explained by a bloomberg poll, released in between the two afformentioned polls, which asked those surveyed to rate the validity of various claims they’ve heard about healthcare reform.  Here are the results:

While these wild charges were certainly making headway at first, it seems that the fact-checkers have caught up and most Americans have, by now, recognized them as non-issues.

While not representative of America as a whole, another poll released a couple weeks back asked America’s physicians what they thought of the public plan:

“When given a three-way choice among private plans that use tax credits or subsidies to help the poor buy private insurance; a new public health insurance plan such as Medicare; or a mix of the two; 63 percent of doctors supported a mix, 27 percent said they only wanted private options, and just 10 percent said they exclusively wanted public options.”

To clarify, the “mix” option refers to the public plan which would compete with private insurers, and the “new public health insurance plan such as medicare” refers to single-payer healthcare ala Canada.  This means that a full 73% of doctors support either a public option or something far stronger.  This is not surprising to me having come recently from a CMA conference in LA where I heard republican physician after republican physician extol the benefits of healthcare reform and lament the lack of competition in the private insurance industry.

So lest my tentative support of the Baucus bill confuse anyone, I count myself among the 65% of Americans who would support a public plan.  The co-ops of the Baucus Bill, while better than nothing, aren’t shaping up to be strong enough to have the negotiating power necessary to substantially lower premiums or lower long-term costs as efficiently as a public option.  While I’m nearly always in favor of political pragmatism, and I believe compromise is superior to partisanship even when one has the power to make their ideals law, I feel it should be noted that the public option was a proposal that came pre-compromised.  It was, in itself, an attempt to bridge the gap between the liberal and conservative theories of healthcare reform.  And as recent polls have shown us, it remains a mainstream, moderate choice.  And if these polls weren’t evidence enough, Bill O’Rielly came out in support of the public plan recently.  I’m not kidding! And when both Keith Olberman and Bill O’Rielly agree on a policy proposal, maybe that’s a sign we have found a reasonable compromise.

So perhaps the tea-party protesters were right in a way.  Maybe congress isn’t listening to the public on this one.  How else could we, with a democratically controlled congress, and a democratic president now be laying our hopes on a healthcare reform plan that does not include a public option, and thus lies to the right of the feelings of most Americans and the large majority of doctors?

Honestly I think it was a strategic issue more than anything else.  Had Obama come in pushing a more liberal plan we might be happily settling on a public option right now.  But, as he has on bills past, Obama attempted to bridge the gap first, then present the plan.  But I think we’ve learned that no amount of concessions prior to coming to the negotiating table will placate those who simply don’t want Obama’s presidency to succeed.  One of the things I liked about Obama during the election was that he consistently expressed a calm faith in the ability of Americans and congress to overcome partisanship.  Perhaps he gave us too much credit?  I hope not.  At the very least we’ve learned that acting as if we’re living in a post-partisan America, isn’t enough to make it so.

If you liked this article, subscribe to posts here: http://thefactofmyignorance.com/post_notification_header/

Or sign up for the FactofMyIgnorance RSS feed here: feed://thefactofmyignorance.com/feed/

No related posts.