Support for Congressional Health Care Reform Falls to New Low

[Bono]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/support_for_congressional_health_care_reform_falls_to_new_low


Support for Congressional Health Care Reform Falls to New Low
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis
Advertisement

Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that opposition to the plan has increased to 53%, up nine points since late June.

More significantly, 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those under 30 favor the plan while 56% of those over 65 are opposed. Among senior citizens, 46% are strongly opposed.

Predictably, 69% of Democrats favor the plan, while 79% of Republicans oppose it. Yet while 44% of Democratic voters strongly favor the reform effort, 70% of GOP voters are strongly opposed to it.
Most notable, however, is the opposition among voters not affiliated with either party. Sixty-two percent (62%) of unaffiliated voters oppose the health care plan, and 51% are strongly opposed. This marks an uptick in strong opposition among both Republicans and unaffiliateds, while the number of strongly supportive Democrats is unchanged.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Despite the loss of support, 51% of all voters still say it is at least somewhat likely that the health care proposal will become law this year. That figure has hardly budged since the debate began and now includes 18% who say passage is very likely. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say passage of the plan is unlikely, but only 10% say it is not at all likely.

Congress is now in recess until early September, but Democratic congressional leaders have vowed to pass some form of the health care plan when they return to Washington. Town hall meetings many of the congressmen are holding to get public feedback on the plan have turned into protest sessions, and the New York Times reports today that the president and Democratic leaders are revamping the sales strategy for the reform effort because they find themselves on the defensive.

As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings, 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they’ve been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists.

The latest polls shows that 26% of voters believe that passage of the Congressional health care plan will lead to a better quality of health care. But most voters (51%) disagree and say the quality will get worse. Seventeen percent (17%) expect it to stay the same.

Voters ages 18 to 29 are closely divided on the question of quality, but those in all older age groups by sizable margins expect quality to worsen.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of Republicans and 59% of unaffiliated voters say passage of the health care plan will cause the quality of health care to go down. Among Democrats, 41% say quality will improve, 25% get worse and 26% stay the same.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of all voters say the cost of health care will go up if the reform proposal passes. Nineteen percent (19%) say costs will go down, and 21% say they will stay the same.

Voters in all age and income groups, again by large margins, believe passage of the reform measure will drive up health care costs.

Republican voters overwhelmingly say costs will go up with the new plan. By a two-to-one margin, unaffiliated voters agree. Democrats are fairly evenly divided as to whether costs will go up or down.
When it comes to health care decisions, 51% of voters fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. But 41% fear the insurance companies more.

Yet only 25% agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that health insurance companies are "villains."
While Congress has debated reforms to the U.S. health care system, Americans have begun to show greater confidence in it. Forty-eight percent (48%) of adults now say the health care system is good or excellent, and only 19% say it’s poor.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters say tax cuts for the middle class are more important than new spending for health care reform, although the president’s top economic advisers have indicated that tax hikes may be necessary to fund the reform plan. That helps explain why 76% say it is likely that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform, and 59% say it’s very likely.

Thirty-two percent (32%) favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone, but 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.

[Democratic Hawk]

Amazing after a period of Republican ineptitude with near catastrophic economic consequences that the Rabid Reactionary Right are so effective in peddling their smears and fears on Health Care Reform

If it wasn't so pathetic I'd break out in hysterics

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Amazing after a period of Republican ineptitude with near catastrophic economic consequences that the Rabid Reactionary Right are so effective in peddling their smears and fears on Health Care Reform

If it wasn't so pathetic I'd break out in hysterics

The right was successful at getting out their message because the left never got out theirs. Obama brought nothing to the health care debate but a jumbled mess.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Amazing after a period of Republican ineptitude with near catastrophic economic consequences that the Rabid Reactionary Right are so effective in peddling their smears and fears on Health Care Reform

If it wasn't so pathetic I'd break out in hysterics

as if the Left had nothing to do with instituting sub prime mortgages

[Stampever]

Amazing after a period of Republican ineptitude with near catastrophic economic consequences that the Rabid Reactionary Right are so effective in peddling their smears and fears on Health Care Reform

If it wasn't so pathetic I'd break out in hysterics

The right was successful at getting out their message because the left never got out theirs. Obama brought nothing to the health care debate but a jumbled mess.

And his partners in Congress claimed they were "listening" to alternative proposals, but came out saying they didn't need any dissenters support to pass the bill since they controlled both Houses.  An instant turn-off to the public, even if they have the right plan (which they don't).

[Democratic Hawk]

Amazing after a period of Republican ineptitude with near catastrophic economic consequences that the Rabid Reactionary Right are so effective in peddling their smears and fears on Health Care Reform

If it wasn't so pathetic I'd break out in hysterics

The right was successful at getting out their message because the left never got out theirs. Obama brought nothing to the health care debate but a jumbled mess.

Right now, Mr. 'Moderate', Democrats are a jumbled mess. And what appears to be a sheer inability on the part of congressional Democrats and the administration to reach a 'consensus' in private only assists the Rabid Reactionary Right

[Meeker]

Garbage poll. Ask 100 different people what Obama's health care plan is and you'll get 100 different answers.

[JSojourner]

Amazing after a period of Republican ineptitude with near catastrophic economic consequences that the Rabid Reactionary Right are so effective in peddling their smears and fears on Health Care Reform

If it wasn't so pathetic I'd break out in hysterics

as if the Left had nothing to do with instituting sub prime mortgages

Totally correct.  We are as much to blame as anyone else and I am disgusted over it.

[memphis]

Amazing to see so many Medicare beneficiaries all worked up about "socialized medicine."

[Marokai Backbeat]

Amazing to see so many Medicare beneficiaries all worked up about "socialized medicine."

Most of the people out there who are opposing it just don't know anything about it, and believe in a lot of misinformation and blatant lies, propagated by conservative pundits and politicians. That, of course, was the plan all along.

Civil discourse, Republicans lose. Easier to have a bunch of riled up ignorant crazies running around preventing civil discourse and accurate information, rather than having to counter it on a a level playing field.

Granted, Democrats played into this. Obama was never specific enough, and it led to a bunch of different plans, and confusion, but Republicans still engaged in a campaign of misinformation, and that's why we're having trouble.

[Democratic Hawk]

as if the Left had nothing to do with instituting sub prime mortgages

Totally correct.  We are as much to blame as anyone else and I am disgusted over it.

I don't see it quite like that

as if the Left had nothing to do with instituting sub prime mortgages

Perhaps if the Republicans hadn't been so beholden to the interests of the privileged few those with subprime mortgages may not have become so fiscally emaciated to the point of being unable to pay them. That said, the Anglo-American model of capitalism does have an unhealthy obssession with "ownership". Whatever happened to the good ol' days when folks lived within their means? That was the way I was raised

This is a crisis essentially wrought by the excesses of neo-liberal dogma - and of the two parties we all know which is more beholden to that. The economy is on very shakey foundations when those who drive it - the middle and working class - don't reap their share of the spoils from economic growth

Getting back to healthcare, surprising as it may seem, it is not in the Democrats' best interests to pass legislation that fails to accomplish its goals (expanding coverage, while reducing costs). The ideological nature of America (arguably, center-right, in so far as conservatives outnumber liberals) might allow Republicans to make a mess of things and get a pass, I'm not so sure it would Democrats, which is why many of them tend to be cautious

The president, meanwhile, is governing pretty much where I expected him to govern from - the pragmatic center-left. And, boy oh boy, isn't he charged with having to fix a Right ol' mess. I imagine its not easy being Obama considering the extent to which many of his opponents are bloody-minded recalcitrants seeking to absolve themselves of any blame yet blame him for just about everything so early into his presidency. For them, Bush's only failing was that he spent too much!

Yet, at times of war, and the threat posed by terrorism, as well as acute economic distress, it's only logical that government expands. However, should some economic boffin out there manages to work out some theory that rids the business cycle of its downturns, I might be more inclined towards small government

The way I see it is that government should endeavor to live within its means during the good times, perhaps running at a nice surplus (that day seems a long way ahead), which can be used, along with any necessary deficit spending, to best combat the, seemingly, inevitable downturn. You can't just skew tax cuts in favor of the wealthiest or investors all the time because what happens when the next downturn ... and the next ... and the next comes along. Yet that's the trumpet the GOP continues to blow from

Oh and bit more effective regulation wouldn't go miss - and I don't doubt that, to a point, Democrats were at fault on that score, so they can consider their arses kicked as well

[k-onmmunist]

Not important right now.

[Dan the Roman]

I always thought this debate was framed badly by focusing on the uninsured. Instead it should have been focused on the insured and who pays for them. If I am Toyota and debating building a factory in Ontario or Michigan, one concern I have is that if my factory is in Ontario I don't have to pay health-care for my workers. I have to pay both wages and health-care if it is in Michigan. One reason(not the only reason, far from it) that the US Auto industry is in such a whole is that it tries to provide its workers with all the benefits they would get abroad, except abroad those benefits come from the government. For all practical purposes that is a governmental subsidy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

as if the Left had nothing to do with instituting sub prime mortgages

Totally correct.  We are as much to blame as anyone else and I am disgusted over it.

I don't see it quite like that

as if the Left had nothing to do with instituting sub prime mortgages

Perhaps if the Republicans hadn't been so beholden to the interests of the privileged few those with subprime mortgages may not have become so fiscally emaciated to the point of being unable to pay them.

they weren't able to pay them regardless.  you don't provide a $200k mortgage to those who don't even have a job.

we need to get back to not providing credit for those who are already burden with more than a 40% debt to income ratio.

I do blame Bush for not putting a stop to the practice and taking away some the regulations (e.g. the uptick rule)

[Democratic Hawk]

we need to get back to not providing credit for those who are already burden with more than a 40% debt to income ratio.

On that I can concur

[Bono]

I always thought this debate was framed badly by focusing on the uninsured. Instead it should have been focused on the insured and who pays for them. If I am Toyota and debating building a factory in Ontario or Michigan, one concern I have is that if my factory is in Ontario I don't have to pay health-care for my workers. I have to pay both wages and health-care if it is in Michigan. One reason(not the only reason, far from it) that the US Auto industry is in such a whole is that it tries to provide its workers with all the benefits they would get abroad, except abroad those benefits come from the government. For all practical purposes that is a governmental subsidy.

That argument is complete BS. Health insurance is part of the worker's compensation. That he receives health insurance means he forgoes cash salary. Because compensation equals marginal productivity, if the government provided health insurance to everyone the company would spend the exact same money on the worker, they'd just provide it in other forms.

[Democratic Hawk]

On the wider issue, the thing is that millions of Americans are happy with their existing plans (be it employer-based or private) - and the conundrum is that the president appears to be, on the one hand, advocating that the status quo is failing and reform is essential but, on the other, he favors those happy with their existing plans retaining their part in that failing status quo. How the hell does he resolve that inherent contradiction? You cannot please all of the people all of the time, man, Barack

I sometimes think Democrats often give Republicans the upper-hand because their arguments, and solutions, are often so darn frickin' complicated

Obama was a stellar campaigner last fall and, in the debates, the moment which most likely resonated with undecided voters came when he explained in terms that any one could understand why the Wall Street bailouts were necessary - and that's the kind of mojo he needs to get back, sh**t sharp

In terms of financing reform, right now, the parameters appear to be 1) deficit neutrality and 2) no tax increases on the middle class. How does the Wyden-Bennett Bill square up against that? Meanwhile, the House Progressive Caucus seems hell bent on opposing anything without a public plan and if so would the center (the majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans) be enough for any plan without it to pass?

Congressional Democrats rate they are going might be able to organise a trip to the brewery but they couldn't arrange a piss up in the bugger. Talk about making it easy for the Rabid Reactionary Right

I don't know whether to weep or blow a fuse [shakes head]

[Dan the Roman]

I always thought this debate was framed badly by focusing on the uninsured. Instead it should have been focused on the insured and who pays for them. If I am Toyota and debating building a factory in Ontario or Michigan, one concern I have is that if my factory is in Ontario I don't have to pay health-care for my workers. I have to pay both wages and health-care if it is in Michigan. One reason(not the only reason, far from it) that the US Auto industry is in such a whole is that it tries to provide its workers with all the benefits they would get abroad, except abroad those benefits come from the government. For all practical purposes that is a governmental subsidy.

That argument is complete BS. Health insurance is part of the worker's compensation. That he receives health insurance means he forgoes cash salary. Because compensation equals marginal productivity, if the government provided health insurance to everyone the company would spend the exact same money on the worker, they'd just provide it in other forms.

Perhaps if pay at these companies was elastic, but they are locked into so many Union agreements that they aren't able to adjust wages in tandem with benefits. Now that is a separate problem, but health insurance premiums have increased much faster than overall wages have in manufacturing and it is next to impossible to get pay cuts without enormous negotiations. The result is that far more is being spent than it would be otherwise. And of these solutions which is easier and more likely to lead to better results"

1. Get rid of Unions

2. Move Healthcare to the government

The other thing you are forgetting is that even at the most basic level, health-care in the US is insanely inefficient. HMOs pay 3 to 5 times as much for the same treatments and medications, because of lack of market power in dealings with drug firms. Single-player fixes that. In every country it has been tried it is vastly more efficient than the current US system. Heck even the private health care systems abroad are more efficient because they benefit from it.

[War on Want]

I always thought this debate was framed badly by focusing on the uninsured. Instead it should have been focused on the insured and who pays for them. If I am Toyota and debating building a factory in Ontario or Michigan, one concern I have is that if my factory is in Ontario I don't have to pay health-care for my workers. I have to pay both wages and health-care if it is in Michigan. One reason(not the only reason, far from it) that the US Auto industry is in such a whole is that it tries to provide its workers with all the benefits they would get abroad, except abroad those benefits come from the government. For all practical purposes that is a governmental subsidy.

That argument is complete BS. Health insurance is part of the worker's compensation. That he receives health insurance means he forgoes cash salary. Because compensation equals marginal productivity, if the government provided health insurance to everyone the company would spend the exact same money on the worker, they'd just provide it in other forms.

Perhaps if pay at these companies was elastic, but they are locked into so many Union agreements that they aren't able to adjust wages in tandem with benefits. Now that is a separate problem, but health insurance premiums have increased much faster than overall wages have in manufacturing and it is next to impossible to get pay cuts without enormous negotiations. The result is that far more is being spent than it would be otherwise. And of these solutions which is easier and more likely to lead to better results"

1. Get rid of Unions

2. Move Healthcare to the government

The other thing you are forgetting is that even at the most basic level, health-care in the US is insanely inefficient. HMOs pay 3 to 5 times as much for the same treatments and medications, because of lack of market power in dealings with drug firms. Single-player fixes that. In every country it has been tried it is vastly more efficient than the current US system. Heck even the private health care systems abroad are more efficient because they benefit from it.

No way, you would never get any support from Democrats to support this.

[Stampever]

I sometimes think Democrats often give Republicans the upper-hand because their arguments, and solutions, are often so darn frickin' complicated

They don't need to be so complicated though.  The system would work better if the government doesn't get involved with trying to provide insurance to citizens but rather resolve the barriers that are blocking those few who are currently uninsured that want to become insured.  What the current batch of left-wing loonies can't figure that out is beyond me.  Don't they know that the honeymoon is already over and they have to shut their mouths and listen to those that voted for them?