72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[Chris]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

 

[ba1614]

Doesn't matter what the polls say or what the people want, you're getting it anyway.

 

[Navy1960]

a total of 895 adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points....


So this 72% consists of 895 people? out of what over 250 million who would be impacted by this,? thats hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of this plan.

 

[Toro]

a total of 895 adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points....


So this 72% consists of 895 people? out of what over 250 million who would be impacted by this,? thats hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of this plan.

In terms of the efficacy of polls, yeah, that's about right.

As long as the statistical sample is a broad cross-sample of Americans, the poll will be accurate to within 3% of the mean 19 times out of 20.

 

[Navy1960]

So the assumption is that in this broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the interests of ALL contruction workers, a soldier a soldier, a Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of most Americans. Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the intentions of ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low. This poll while interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people that need, want, or have healthcare.

 

[Toro]

So the assumption is that in this broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the interests of ALL contruction workers, a soldier a soldier, a Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of most Americans. Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the intentions of ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low. This poll while interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people that need, want, or have healthcare.

Most national polls have a sample of around 1,000 people that are accurate within 3% of the sample and a confidence interval of 95%. In English, that means given any specific poll at any given time, we expect it to be accurate within 3% 19 times out of 20.

Let's look at the last Presidential election. The final results for the popular vote was Obama 53%, McCain 46%.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

So, the confidence interval tells us we would expect Obama to receive 50% to 56% of the vote 19 times out of 20 and McCain to receive between 49% and 43% 19 times out of 20.

What actually happened in the election? Here are the polls on the last days of the election.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Latest Polls

There were 15 polls on the last weekend of the election. Every poll had Obama between 50% and 55%. Every poll had McCain between 48% and 42%. So the polls were pretty accurate even though the typical poll had about 1,000 respondents.

If you averaged out the polls, Obama was at 52.1% but received 52.9% while McCain was at 44.5% and received 45.6%. We would expect the average to be closer given that the 15 polls account for a population sample of around 20,000 (out of 300 million).

So, yeah, 1,000 people is usually a pretty fair assessment of the national mood. Political parties don't pay pollsters millions of dollars for nothing. There are many reasons to be skeptical about this poll, but generally, the methodological construction is probably not one of them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Yeah, they support it until they find out how much it will cost them. In a few years, Medicare will go broke and by some counts Medicare now has $30 trillion in future unfunded liabilities and this is a result of government mismanagement and allowing politics and not economic reality determine what the taxes, premiums, that are supposed to pay for Medicare should be. In a few years, to keep Medicare afloat, voters will either have to pay higher taxes, see larger deficits or suffer reduced coverage.

 

[Political Junky]

So the assumption is that in this broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the interests of ALL contruction workers, a soldier a soldier, a Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of most Americans. Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the intentions of ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low. This poll while interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people that need, want, or have healthcare.

It's pathetic to see republicans still questioning how polling is done. They don't seem to be so dubious about polls that lean toward how they feel.

 

[ReillyT]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Yeah, they support it until they find out how much it will cost them. In a few years, Medicare will go broke and by some counts Medicare now has $30 trillion in future unfunded liabilities and this is a result of government mismanagement and allowing politics and not economic reality determine what the taxes, premiums, that are supposed to pay for Medicare should be. In a few years, to keep Medicare afloat, voters will either have to pay higher taxes, see larger deficits or suffer reduced coverage.

How is Medicare mismanaged? Its overhead costs are very low vis-a-vis private insurers and it's participants consistently rate higher levels of satisfaction than the privately insured.

Whatever else one may choose to say about it, it doesn't appear to be mismanaged.

 

[toomuchtime_]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Yeah, they support it until they find out how much it will cost them. In a few years, Medicare will go broke and by some counts Medicare now has $30 trillion in future unfunded liabilities and this is a result of government mismanagement and allowing politics and not economic reality determine what the taxes, premiums, that are supposed to pay for Medicare should be. In a few years, to keep Medicare afloat, voters will either have to pay higher taxes, see larger deficits or suffer reduced coverage.

How is Medicare mismanaged? Its overhead costs are very low vis-a-vis private insurers and it's participants consistently rate higher levels of satisfaction than the privately insured.

Whatever else one may choose to say about it, it doesn't appear to be mismanaged.

Medicare is mismanaged because it does not charge enough to cover its expenses. In a few years, the Medicare trust will be empty and Medicare will not be able to pay its bills unless the government raises your taxes, increases the deficit or reduces coverage.

 

[Care4all]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Yeah, they support it until they find out how much it will cost them. In a few years, Medicare will go broke and by some counts Medicare now has $30 trillion in future unfunded liabilities and this is a result of government mismanagement and allowing politics and not economic reality determine what the taxes, premiums, that are supposed to pay for Medicare should be. In a few years, to keep Medicare afloat, voters will either have to pay higher taxes, see larger deficits or suffer reduced coverage.

How is Medicare mismanaged? Its overhead costs are very low vis-a-vis private insurers and it's participants consistently rate higher levels of satisfaction than the privately insured.

Whatever else one may choose to say about it, it doesn't appear to be mismanaged.

hey reilly
some of the private sector rips medicare off....like clinics or doctors charging medicare for services or tests never rendered. They are crooks and rip off insurance companies as well, though so this wouldn't diminish medicare's efficiency, any more than it would for the insurance companies....

and now PHARMA is agreeing this past week, to negotiate bulk discounts for medicare prescriptions, so this should give some cost savings....

care

 

[driveby]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

ok corky ....

 

[AVG-JOE]

If public insurance has to compete with private insurance, will this not keep both bureaucracies a bit more honest? If the private insurance companies can drive the public one out of business with better service, what's the loss?

-Joe

 

[toomuchtime_]

If public insurance has to compete with private insurance, will this not keep both bureaucracies a bit more honest? If the private insurance companies can drive the public one out of business with better service, what's the loss?

-Joe

Fair enough if the government plan has to manage of what it collects through its premiums and interest on its reserves, but if it allowed, as Medicare is, to charge artificially low rates and then get bailed out with higher taxes or larger deficits, then that is not competition but a plan to establish a government monopoly on health insurance.

 

[jan]

There's a lot of reason's for a National Health Care plan, not the least of which is industries inability to compete with other countries who offer it. The cost of doing business in the U.S. is higher when the employer pays for health care.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If public insurance has to compete with private insurance, will this not keep both bureaucracies a bit more honest? If the private insurance companies can drive the public one out of business with better service, what's the loss?

-Joe

Fair enough if the government plan has to manage of what it collects through its premiums and interest on its reserves, but if it allowed, as Medicare is, to charge artificially low rates and then get bailed out with higher taxes or larger deficits, then that is not competition but a plan to establish a government monopoly on health insurance.

As it is, Medicare is funded 100% from the Medicare Trust Fund which is funded by a separate tax which is so small most people don't even know that they pay it and Medicare premiums paid by retirees from their social security benefits. Medicare does not receive any general tax revenues.

Knowing the shit-pile of money We, The People were able to accumulate and stash between 1935 and now for Social Security using the FICA tax (compare that to your Federal Withholding), I can only imagine the trust fund We could establish if we were to pool the health-care premiums that we and our employers pay into a similar fund.

Take out of the equation the dollars skimmed off of our health-care spending used for profits, executive bonuses, advertising and government lobbying efforts and it is no wonder the owners of the private insurance bureaucracies are spending a few billion to keep that gravy train to themselves.

-Joe

 

[toomuchtime_]

If public insurance has to compete with private insurance, will this not keep both bureaucracies a bit more honest? If the private insurance companies can drive the public one out of business with better service, what's the loss?

-Joe

Fair enough if the government plan has to manage of what it collects through its premiums and interest on its reserves, but if it allowed, as Medicare is, to charge artificially low rates and then get bailed out with higher taxes or larger deficits, then that is not competition but a plan to establish a government monopoly on health insurance.

As it is, Medicare is funded 100% from the Medicare Trust Fund which is funded by a separate tax which is so small most people don't even know that they pay it and Medicare premiums paid for by retirees from their social security benefits. Medicare does not receive any general tax revenues.

Knowing the shit-pile of money We, The People were able to accumulate and stash between 1935 and now for Social Security using the FICA tax (compare that to your Federal Withholding), I can only imagine the trust fund We could establish if we were to pool the health-care premiums that we and our employers pay into a similar fund.

Take out of the equation the dollars skimmed off of our health-care spending used for profits, executive bonuses, advertising and government lobbying efforts and it is no wonder the owners of the private insurance bureaucracies are spending a few billion to keep that gravy train to themselves.

-Joe

The last report I saw showed the Medicare trust would be empty in eight years and the Medicare taxes and premiums would then be insufficient to pay Medicare's bills. At that time Medicare can only be saved by either raising taxes/premiums, incurring larger deficits every year or by reducing coverage.

 

[Political Junky]

Yeah, they support it until they find out how much it will cost them. In a few years, Medicare will go broke and by some counts Medicare now has $30 trillion in future unfunded liabilities and this is a result of government mismanagement and allowing politics and not economic reality determine what the taxes, premiums, that are supposed to pay for Medicare should be. In a few years, to keep Medicare afloat, voters will either have to pay higher taxes, see larger deficits or suffer reduced coverage.

How is Medicare mismanaged? Its overhead costs are very low vis-a-vis private insurers and it's participants consistently rate higher levels of satisfaction than the privately insured.

Whatever else one may choose to say about it, it doesn't appear to be mismanaged.

hey reilly
some of the private sector rips medicare off....like clinics or doctors charging medicare for services or tests never rendered. They are crooks and rip off insurance companies as well, though so this wouldn't diminish medicare's efficiency, any more than it would for the insurance companies....

and now PHARMA is agreeing this past week, to negotiate bulk discounts for medicare prescriptions, so this should give some cost savings....

care

It's about time they negotiated for drug prices in Medicare D. That program was written by Big Pharma and passed by congressmen on the take from them.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Fair enough if the government plan has to manage of what it collects through its premiums and interest on its reserves, but if it allowed, as Medicare is, to charge artificially low rates and then get bailed out with higher taxes or larger deficits, then that is not competition but a plan to establish a government monopoly on health insurance.

As it is, Medicare is funded 100% from the Medicare Trust Fund which is funded by a separate tax which is so small most people don't even know that they pay it and Medicare premiums paid for by retirees from their social security benefits. Medicare does not receive any general tax revenues.

Knowing the shit-pile of money We, The People were able to accumulate and stash between 1935 and now for Social Security using the FICA tax (compare that to your Federal Withholding), I can only imagine the trust fund We could establish if we were to pool the health-care premiums that we and our employers pay into a similar fund.

Take out of the equation the dollars skimmed off of our health-care spending used for profits, executive bonuses, advertising and government lobbying efforts and it is no wonder the owners of the private insurance bureaucracies are spending a few billion to keep that gravy train to themselves.

-Joe

The last report I saw showed the Medicare trust would be empty in eight years and the Medicare taxes and premiums would then be insufficient to pay Medicare's bills. At that time Medicare can only be saved by either raising taxes/premiums, incurring larger deficits every year or by reducing coverage.

I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.

On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.

United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session

U.S. Senate

-Joe

 

[Meister]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Yeah, they support it until they find out how much it will cost them. In a few years, Medicare will go broke and by some counts Medicare now has $30 trillion in future unfunded liabilities and this is a result of government mismanagement and allowing politics and not economic reality determine what the taxes, premiums, that are supposed to pay for Medicare should be. In a few years, to keep Medicare afloat, voters will either have to pay higher taxes, see larger deficits or suffer reduced coverage.

Exactly