Public Option Now More Popular Than Obama’s Overall Reform Plan
Another telling finding from the new NBC/WSJ poll: The public option is now more popular than Obama’s overall health care plan.
The poll finds that more respondents favor the creation of a public plan, 48%-42%, a reversal from last month. And the poll also finds that fewer think Obama’s overall plan is a good idea than think it’s a bad idea, 38%-42%.
So the public option (favored by 48%) holds a ten-point lead over the overall plan (favored by 38%). You couldn’t really find anything that more perfectly illustrates how perverse it is that the public plan, above all else, is not a sure thing in Congress.
Separately, these numbers reveal that the campaign in favor of the public option has had an upside and a downside. The public option’s growing popularity obviously illustrates that the push for it, in the face of relentless assaults from the right and the insurance industry, has been a success. But the constant focus on it may have drowned out debate over the rest of the plan, leaving the public confused and apprehensive about reform in general.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
question for readers, I’m kicking around the idea of doing a morning roundup, along the lines of the happy hour one. that something you all would want?
Greg,
A very good idea. The happy hour roundup comes at a time, when people are starting to log off for the night.
I say go for it.
Also, have you seen any reports at all about the death of the census worker in Kentucky. I have not. I have seen too many reports about the Balloon Boy, but not one recent report on that murder case.
Why not give the people what they want.
I say we should just pass a Public Option bill now, and not change anything else.
That would make the Public Option the only place that people would not be refused coverage or dropped.
I would like to see Leiberman, Snowe, and the Rest of the Republicans try to block that.
Morning roundup would be good; the three posts I never miss are Steve Benen’s Campaign Roundup in the morning, his Mini-Report at the end of the day, and your Happy Hour (along with Kevin Drum’s Friday Cat Blogging, but that’s only once a week). Even if I don’t have time to peruse the whole blog those three keep me in the loop.
I would venture a guess that the higher numbers on the public option than the overall plan is because there are a fair number of us out here who love the public option and are pissed at the continual watering down of the overall plan. Just a guess. . .
A morning roundup is a good idea.
Are u planning any new reporting on the reconciliation route? I am not sure how the PO will get passed without it.
Okay, Liam, I’ll run that down re Fed. And thx others — occurs to me that these numbers are an argument for reconcilliation too.
Greg, that’s what the Prez said – PO was just a ’sliver’ of the his proposed reforms. much to the poutrage from the left. PO was put front and center as a do or die option by the left (looking at you Greg) that no one got to hear what his rest of the reform plan was. And yet, now, you turn around and blame him. Doin’ heckuva job, Greggie.
amk — ain’t nobody blaming nobody here. what you talking about?
If you do a public option without also allowing insurers to cross state lines, you are doing John Q. Public a grave disservice. Nothing will drive prices down like competition will.
With just a public option, the only competition will be between the option and whatever companies are allowed to operate in that individual state.
Holt Cow!!! We might even see insurers beating out the option packages!! Oh, I forgot, the public option will almost certainly be subsidized, and therefor not playing on a level playing field.
Oh well. It was a nice dream while it lasted.
“PO was just a ’sliver’ of the his proposed reforms. much to the poutrage from the left. PO was put front and center as a do or die option by the left”
Yep and I blame the left for opt-out, because most of the left is perfectly ok with red state Democrats being abandoned,as long as they get theirs.
It’s all in framing, Greg.
“The public option” is a simple concept whereas “reforming healthcare” is both unclear and complex. My guess is that the difference sits here.
You know, the activist on the left have been working overtime since January to be as obnoxious as possible and a whole bunch of them succeeded.
I don’t want to hear anything else out of the people who are in favor of opt out as long as they don’t have to deal with opt out. They sure as hell don’t need to remind me or anyone else that they don’t give a damn.
Consequently, I am not interested in what they have to say about reform anymore, especially complaining about it. They led us into what I consider a deeply flawed idea and embraced it.
Here’s a pretty good piece about how the media kept calling the PO dead, over and over and over. It includes a timeline going back to August with some pretty funny quotes from Media personalities everywhere, Fox, CNN and MSNBC.
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today announced that the public option (Charles Schumer’s “opt out” plan, in particular) will be contained in the bill he moves to the Senate floor. This is an absolute shock to the media, since they have been obsessing over only one bill out of a total of five that congressional committees have passed to date — the one produced by Max Baucus’ Senate Finance Committee. Baucus’ bill (which took the longest to appear) is the only one of these five bills without a public option. But, in apparent widespread confusion as to how Congress actually works, the media has been pushing the “public option is dead” theme for so long, it’s no wonder they’re so astonished at today’s news. Because it proves (yet again, I might add) that the media’s credibility is really what should have been pronounced dead months ago, and not the public option.”
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/medias-credibility-not-pu_b_334767.html
@Larbo,
You forgot what? You are actually just making stuff up. The Public Option will be Self Sustaining. It gets no Federal Subsidies. You are probably confusing it with the Private Insurance coverage part of the bill, which is scheduled to get $500 Billion in Federal Subsidies.
Larbo, I think you forgot to read the Baucus bill.
“Interstate Sale of Insurance. Starting in 2015, states may form “health care choice compacts” to allow for the purchase of non-group health insurance across state lines. Such compacts may exist between two or more states. Once compacts have been formed, insurers would be allowed to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. Insurers selling policies through a
compact would only be subject to the laws and regulations of the state where the policy is written or issued.”
@Greg: “Occurs to me that these numbers are an argument for reconcilliation too.”
Do you think it is a good idea to force a partisan bill through that most people don’t support?
States “may” allow. This is no more than they are “allowed” to do now. Please tell me what is different!! States that don’t allow it now will not allow it then!!
Last night on. PBS News Hour:
Senator Snowe admitted that she was the one who suggested the Trigger Option, and then she went on to say, that if it were put in a bill, she would now not vote for it, and she would even filibuster it. Senator Snowe is now officially a Republican Stepford Senator.
I think that she has gotten the message from the far right, which is beating up Newt and Lindsey, as well as what they are doing to the Republican congressional nominee in New York State.
Forget about getting support from Snowe. She has been scared back into line by the Right Wingers.
Didja hear what Kyl said about the “opt-in” option?
Liam, what proof do you have that P.O. will be self sustaining?
Dick Durbin wants to know which kind of public option the people want. Take this poll and pass it on please.
http://ga3.org/dickdurbin/po_poll.html?member_key=es83b78rrj3e56wk&qp_source=popoll
Larbo,
It is in the language of the bill, and it is what the President has asked for. He stated that clearly in his Address to Congress.
On the other hand, you just made up your claim that it would be subsidized. I can see now that you are not interested in dealing with facts.
If you take the Durbin poll be forewarned that you’ll instantly be thanked “for signing up to join the Dick Durbin online community!”
Some of those who cannot afford insurance will receive subsidies to purchase either private or public insurance in the insurance exchange.
Liam,
What is it about the words “almost certain” that you don’t understand? They certainly don’t mean “will be”. I used them to state am opinion that has been formed by watching government in action for well over 45 years. I am 63 now,and far to old and experienced to be taken in by any claims of “self funding”. Just look at virtually any public transit system in the world.
These polls are absolutely worthless. Once you start telling people what the public option entails, which the most recent polls don’t, support for the public option drops to about 40%, as evidenced by polls such as those from the Kaiser Foundation and Pew.
If the Dems really wanted competition, they don’t, instead of increased government control over pretty much every facet of American life and the economy, they would get rid of the laws prohibiting the purchase of insurance across state lines. But then that would involve Dems at the state level having less power, and we can’t have that.
Durbin is a typical sneaky politician. He just proved it in the poll which automatically signs you up for something you never asked for. How can we not be deeply suspicious of our government?
Entwhistle,
I agree 100% with the removal of restrictions for competition accross state lines. This is the most powerfull tool possible for lowering the cost of insurance.
Here’s a challenge for all of you on this blog.
Why do the Democrats absolutely refuse to acknowledge this as a tool for lowering costs, and propose more government control instead?
“If the Dems really wanted competition, they don’t, instead of increased government control over pretty much every facet of American life and the economy”
That hardly goes far enough. My preference is for people in red states to be gathered up and processed into nutrient packets for the world’s starving.
Or we could bring all the folks like Tena out of Texas, move all the Perry sympathizers into Texas and put a big red fence around it.
I knew you guys couldn’t come up with any rational answer to my challenge. I just wanted to prove it to you.
“Why do the Democrats absolutely refuse to acknowledge this as a tool for lowering costs, and propose more government control instead?”
Because doing away with state consumer protections would amount to a total breakdown of regulation of the insurance industry.
The amazing thing is the inconsistency of the Republican Party.
I thought you were for States rights over the Federal Govt?
What you are talking about is the elimination of states’ rights in regards to health insurance.
And Entwistle, re: choice
http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=319341&
“Durbin is a typical sneaky politician. He just proved it in the poll which automatically signs you up for something you never asked for. How can we not be deeply suspicious of our government?”
Ethan answered you and here’s why I won’t anymore. Durbin is one of the few guys in the Senate telling the truth. Remember he said “The banks own the Senate”.
Who said I was a Republican? Not me. I have voted both ways in the past, and consider myself a middle of the road independant.
The P.O. is also an elimination of states rights for the same reasons, except it eliminates more.
Who said anything about eliminating consumer protections? Not me. Just the elimination of interstate restrictions.
You guys still haven’t answered my challenge!!
How can Durbin be an honest Senator when he did what he just did?
# sgwhiteinfla | October 28th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Dick Durbin wants to know which kind of public option the people want. Take this poll and pass it on please.
http://ga3.org/dickdurbin/po_poll.html?member_key=es83b78rrj3e56wk&qp_source=popoll
…………………………
Thanks Sg.
I just filled out the poll.
I voted 10 on the Fifty State Public Option, and Zero on all the others.
I was in the midst of doing it earlier, but the phone company disrupted my DSL feed, to repair my land line, which they have been trying to restore since Friday. Finally got it back up.
People need to stop whining. If they do not want their email and names used by a political office, then they should not answer the damn poll. I have no problem with giving my contact info to them.
The silence is deafening. Still no answers. I guess I’ll just log off and leave you guys to your obfuscation.
>>>Who said I was a Republican?
Across state lines is a Republican Talking point. You may not be a registered Republican, but you are clearly susceptible to their propaganda.
>>>The P.O. is also an elimination of states rights for the same reasons, except it eliminates more.
Um, no. Especially not with the Opt-out clause that allows states to opt out. If nothing else, this SOLIDIFIES states rights on health insurance. But the general premise is that the Public Option is an OPTION for the public. States rights on private insurance won’t be affected, whereas with your proposal they would be.
>>>Who said anything about eliminating consumer protections? Not me. Just the elimination of interstate restrictions.
Right. And under U.S. interstate commerce laws, states are able to provide their own consumer protection regulations. In order to ALLOW interstate commerce on health insurance they must radically alter the state regulations on consumer protection. So, to do as you propose (eliminate interstate restrictions on commerce) you are by-nature eliminating state regulations on consumer protection.
Look it up. These are all facts. Do your own research. I’ve given you a good start on coming back into the fold of truth over propaganda. It’s your choice where to go from here. And that largely depends on the sources of information you seek. Go to Fox Propaganda and you will get unadulterated false propaganda. Research both sides of the issue or you will be ignorant of the truth, and that will be nobody’s fault but your own.
Larbo
If you think de-regulating the insurance industry is such a good idea why don’t you think about what happened when we de-regulated the banking industry.
When the insurance industry rescinds 50% of the insurance policies in the top 1% of the sickest folks in the country I don’t see how de-regulation will curtail these practices. These are people who have paid their premiums in good faith.
When they raise their premiums 10%-15% per year and more and more people can’t afford insurance or are left out because of pre-existing conditions, how will de-regulation fix this?
When 46,000 people die every year because of lack of insurance, how will de-regulation help this.
The insurance industry today is corrupt and doing everything in it’s power to keep their cushy jobs and legislators in their hip pockets, why should I trust them to do better selling insurance in one state with no control when they’re already ripping consumers off in other states.
If we have a mandate, which was a Repub idea before it wasn’t, we can’t just force people to buy insurance they can’t afford or that is junk.
The PO is just another choice for the consumer, and personally after being a victim of the insurance industry, I prefe that choice.
Larbo,
I see you played the age card. I love when clowns like you try to bully people with their age. So you are 63 years of age. Big deal. I am older than you by seven years. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it, age card playing bully.
“That hardly goes far enough. My preference is for people in red states to be gathered up and processed into nutrient packets for the world’s starving.”
“Soylent green is people!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE
AHIP. Does that sound familiar. All the members collude, legally. They do not compete against each other. They fix prices, and allowing them to do so across state lines, would not change that reality. They still would be fixing prices and gouging the Healthy People that they steal money from.
I think we scared Larbo off with facts.
The silence is deafening.
I know. I didn’t really want to go over all that again because we’ve already done it ad infinitum. But we did and now he’s gone.
I love the part where he complains that a PO would take away states’ rights, and then starts demanding that states lose their rights to regulate which Insurance Companies can do business in their states. He is very wishy washy on this States Rights thingy.
Haha lmsinca, Liam. Let’s face it. The dude had no chance coming here with that cr@p. haha
The article was awesome. This article was very helpful.I am indebted for this information.