by Mark Silva
The Senate's post-Thanksgiving debate over health care gets underway this week against a backdrop of apparent deep public division and slight disapproval.
With the Senate poised to take up a health-care overhaul which the Democrats and independent allies have voted to advance to debate and which the Republicans have voted to block, the Gallup Poll today reports that 49 percent of Americans surveyed say they would advise their member of Congress to vote against a bill and 44 percent say they would recommend a vote for it.
The findings represent a turnaround since early October, when Gallup found that 51 percent of those surveyed favored a vote for a health-care bill and 41 percent said they opposed it.
The latest findings come from a survey conducted Nov. 20-22 by Gallup and USA Today as the Senate was acting to advance the bill to debate and reflect little change in attitude since earlier this month, after the House adopted its own version of a health-care overhaul offering insurance coverage to most of the uninsured and promising better coverage for those with insurance.
Independent voters are displaying a marked disapproval for a bill now. But "support among all three party groups has declined since the early October high falling by six points among Democrats, eight among independents, and 12 among Republicans,'' Gallup's Jeffrey Jones notes.'
Since the debate got underway this year, with President Barack Obama pressing for action on health care by the year's end, Gallup's surveys have never found "a strong public mandate in favor of passing a law this year,'' Jones notes. That October measure of 51 percent public support for a bill marked the high point in Gallup's polling.
Yet opinion is " far from settled,'' Jones notes.
" When initially asked about their preferred course of action on healthcare legislation, 22% of Americans say they do not yet have an opinion on the matter (although 15% subsequently provide an opinion when asked if they lean one way or the other). The percentage with no opinion on the initial question has fluctuated since August, but has never been lower than the current 22% figure.
"Because those who initially express no opinion divide fairly evenly between support and opposition when probed for their leaning, the trend on the initial question has been similar to the trend shown at the beginning of the article that combines initial preferences and leanings.''
Republicans on Capitol Hill apparently are voting the way most members of their party suggest: 86 percent of those surveyed advising against a vote for a bill. Democrats, by contrast, support a vote by 76 percent. Independents oppose it, by 53% to 37%.
The president's own approval rating on health care has slipped, with just 40 percent of those surveyed in the latest poll saying they approve of Obama's handling of health-care policy.
"Despite the considerable efforts of Congress and the president to pass health insurance reform, the public remains reluctant to endorse that goal,'' Gallup's Jones writes. "The recent trend has been in the opposite direction, with opposition growing.''
The latest survey of 1,017 adults carries a possible margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points
Comments
Other polls show opposition to the public option as well as the Demoncraps plans to take over 1/6th of the U.S. economy and permanently damage the country in the 56 to 65 percent range. Indpendents are bolting from the Demoncrap party faster than falks from a sinking ship.
Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | November 30, 2009 8:06 AM
Almost every American believes that the current health care system needs to be modified but many have concerns over the Democrats proposals.
Many believe tort reform should be included but the trial lawyers are against any reform so it was not included.
The cost proposals that are bantered about frighten everyone as no one believes that they will reduce the deficit..
In this time of economic uncertainity it is not politically astute to raise taxes.
In all probability Pelosi and Reid should slow down and come up with legislation that reaches out to everyone instead of their political base.
Posted by: Pat H | November 30, 2009 8:19 AM
Without a strong public option, healthcare *reform* will essentially benefit the insurance industry and leave those Americans without insurance, 47 million+ exactly where they are today: SOL
Posted by: writerofwrongs | November 30, 2009 8:34 AM
Did you really expect anything less, with Corporate America tightening the screws, from goon squads to tax-free commercials, propagandizing their; "Oh, so humanitarian in their choreographed concerns for their victims, oops, clients" !! Surprise, surprise. They already sold their soul to the devil, but now, they are even more committed, because it, healthcare reform, means we are going to take away their goose, that has been laying the golden eggs, for these past 100 years !!
How much of our money have they already spread around, from tax-write offs, to out right bribes.? My guess, conservatively, ha-ha, at least several Billion Dollars !! We all know how conservatives lie, so it is probably way more than that. In any case, Americans will continue to pay dearly, because a few wealthy Americans have an ideological hatred for helping people and doing the right thing. What they just haven't been able to grasp, other than our money and tax-exemptions, is to continue on this road means economic disaster. What the heck are a few thousand lives lost a year, sacrificed on the altar of greed, because 50 Million citizens couldn't afford serious healthcare ? Go get the money, you greedy capitialists, snatch that money, from them cold, dead hands !! Way to go, you money-grubbing capitalists, with your greed intact and thriving !! You sure know how to make America appear mean-spirited and cold-hearted !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | November 30, 2009 8:43 AM
Think its time for Congress to get their ears checked and get hearing aids throgh their deluxe heathcare(FREE), think the word "Obimbo Cure" would them deathen them.
Posted by: Inky | November 30, 2009 9:44 AM
Go get the money, you greedy capitialists, snatch that money, from them cold, dead hands !! Way to go, you money-grubbing capitalists, with your greed intact and thriving !! You sure know how to make America appear mean-spirited and cold-hearted !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | November 30, 2009 8:43 AM
Don- there is a relatively fundamental psychological term called "projection"- this term describes an unconscious act of denial of your attributes,thoughts or imaginations, ( usually the ones that you are ashamed of having) while at the same time projecting these attributes to the outside world or other people...the end result is that you end up accusing others of doing what you yourself are guilty of...
My diagnosis;
You have projected the greedy behaviour of Harry Reids gift of $300M to buy Mary Landrieu's vote to anyone but Harry and Mary... now- can you tell me about your childhood, was your father away from home a lot?
Posted by: heartburn | November 30, 2009 10:39 AM
I still like the republican way. We didn't pay for Iraq, Afghanistan, or Bush's tax cuts. How dare dems make us pay for healthcare.
Posted by: bill r. | November 30, 2009 10:51 AM
Gee, look at who has been going to the White House to make deals, no wonder people are not supporting this debacle:
----
AP: 575 White House visits by health care special interests*-------------------------------------
The Associated Press has moved a story saying that health care lobbyists and other interests have made 575 visits to the White House between January and August. The report is based on records released by the White House on Wednesday.
------------------------------------------
The timing of the release smells of a classic Washington tactic -- dumping bad news on the getaway day before a long weekend. Clearly, the White House, which prides itself as being the most transparent administration in the history of the world, hopes this nugget gets lost over the four-day Thanksgiving weekend.---------------------------------------------------------
The list also includes George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans; Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist who represents Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients; Billy Tauzin, head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby; and Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association.
--------------------------------------------
Several lobbyists for powerful health care interests, including insurers, drug companies and large employers, also visited the White House complex, the records show:
--------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/AP_575_White_House_visits_by_health_care_special_interests_.html?showall
Posted by: Dave | November 30, 2009 11:16 AM
From one doctor to a quack : Take some antacids and re-educated yourself !! While your at it, change that bulb in your projector, too !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | November 30, 2009 11:24 AM
Well, well, the hapless Cong. Dems and the detached, modulated, BHO are reaping the rewards of being timid.
Instead of a bold, clean, understandable single payer system that could be clearly explained to the American people we have this huge, complex, mess of a bill with few actual improvements to a dying system.
The only real benefits that can be clearly articulated are the 'no pre-existing condition denial', and eliminating the lifetime limit. Beyond that we have some ill defined 'national pool' to go buy expensive out of state insurance.
And it looks like there are no cost or price controls, so we will continue to pay the big increases we now suffer under the current system.
And the so called 'public option' is actually the 'non-existent, BS, it's all a political magic trick' option. It's been so weakened as to be useless. And even the proponents say it will cost the individual even more that the skyrocketing private sector insurance.
Plus, as was the case with the CCRA/Guns in the Parks Bill, the so called agreement with 'Monumental Pharma' is also proving to be a mess. The M-Pharma syndicate has, since the agreement, been raising their prices as fast as possible in an attempt to make the up promised $80Gb before they so kindly give it back to us over ten years.
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | November 30, 2009 11:27 AM
"Healthcare: public opposition grows" is the headline.
Excuse me, is "healthcare" the new White House/Swamp euphemism for ObamaCare?
It's plain to all but agenda-driven journalists that people don't oppose "heathcare", they oppose Obama's expensive government takeover of healthcare.
Posted by: Bruce | November 30, 2009 12:51 PM
No, actually Obamacare is the opposition's preferred euphemism for people oppose the president's plan to insure Americans who are uninsured.
Posted by: Mark Silva | November 30, 2009 1:02 PM
No, actually Obamacare is the opposition's preferred euphemism for people oppose the president's plan to insure Americans who are uninsured.
Posted by: Mark Silva | November 30, 2009 1:02 PM
Bruce makes a good point- No one is opposed to health care- which your headline suggests...supporters of Obama care have been using this rhetorical trick to hide the fact that the proposed legislation will do nothing more than divert a huge amount of the payments of health care insurance currently being made by private employers and citizens , to the government providing the payment for coverage- who will be kind enough to tax the daylights out of all of us in order to “provide” health care coverage”.
The issue is not a lack of "Healthcare" it is a lack of health care insurance for roughly 5% of the population- (nowhere near the 47 million initially trotted out). There is no bill in the house or senate that is increasing the amount of healthcare to anybody. There will be no additional doctors, hospitals, or prescription drugs created by legislation. In fact- the irony of this nonsense is that it will likely overtax the supply side of our health care system through overuse (ever been to an all you can eat buffet?) – which will ultimately INCREASE the cost of health care for everyone.
It is accurate to say that MOST people are opposed to a massive government takeover ( an already proven horribly, inefficient provider) of the means of providing health care insurance by private companies, and the actual providing of health care insurance to those who cannot get coverage by their own means.
Posted by: heartburn | November 30, 2009 1:40 PM
Mark, people are not opposed to health care. What they are opposed to is the government taking over 1/6th of the economy. What they are opposed to is the government telling people that if they don't get health insurance, they will end up in jail. What they are opposed to is alleged health care reform that does not include tort reform. What they are opposed to is the Demoncrap and Obimbo plan to take over health care. That is why it's called Obamacare by many who oppose it.
To say public opposition grows to health care is about as truthful as the jobs created/save numbers spewed by this crap of a shaministration.
Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | November 30, 2009 2:10 PM
" people are not opposed to health care. What they are opposed to is the government taking over 1/6th of the economy. "
That's part of the problem, and why we need SP or a robust public option.
Health care should NOT be 1/6 of the economy.
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | November 30, 2009 2:49 PM
What people are also opposed to is it will take ten years of tax collections to pay for six years of Obamacare. So what happens in year 11? Come on Libs, get out your calculators. This isn't as hard as it appears. You have two choices. Increase taxes to make up for the defecit created for the following four years or cut out the Obama mess.
Posted by: Fed up with Liberal Whining | November 30, 2009 2:54 PM
john, rightwing nut:
Mark, people are not opposed to health care. What they are opposed to is the government taking over 1/6th of the economy. What they are opposed to is the government telling people that if they don't get health insurance, they will end up in jail. What they are opposed to is alleged health care reform that does not include tort reform. What they are opposed to is the Demoncrap and Obimbo plan to take over health care. That is why it's called Obamacare by many who oppose it.
To say public opposition grows to health care is about as truthful as the jobs created/save numbers spewed by this crap of a shaministration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Smart level-headed Americans realize that for too long the medical industry and their cousins, the pharma's and lobbyists, have had America by the short hairs, destroying lives, playing God, interfering in physician-patient relationships, practicing medicine without a license, paying themselves obscene wages at the expense of coverage to their policyholders, among other mercenary behaviors.
Smart people know that this simply cannot go on and that our government has a constitutional duty to protect it's citizens from such injustices. The current arrangement is unsustainable and the economy simply will never recover unless there is healthcare reform with a public option.
Posted by: writerofwrongs | November 30, 2009 2:58 PM
“No, actually Obamacare is the opposition's preferred euphemism for people oppose the president's plan to insure Americans who are uninsured.”
.
Posted by: Mark Silva | November 30, 2009 1:02 PM
.
I will assume your bona fide belief in this rhetoric, Mr. Silva; but it doesn’t hold up to the light of day. This bill isn’t just a plan to insure the uninsured.
.
If the government wanted to simply insure the uninsured, it could have created a program, or expanded one or more of many programs (i.e. SCHIP or Medicaid), to provide low cost/free medical insurance to those who couldn’t afford it. There are many examples of the government focusing time and money solely on the indigent when indigency was the problem. When the government decided to wage a war on poverty, it didn’t include paying money to those who had a job and made more than a certain amount over the poverty level. The same is true of other government handouts, such as the food stamp and school lunch programs. Thus, one can be sure that if the government were merely concerned about insuring the uninsured, it would have focused entirely on making insurance available to the uninsured.
.
But none of the House or Senate bills covering the subject of health care are limited to covering the uninsured. All of them impose universal health insurance requirements on all health care providers, most business owners, and all citizens and resident aliens - including those who can afford to buy insurance or to self-insure. In the process, the government proposes to regulate and tax everyone with regard to One sixth (1/6th) of the entire economy. For the first time in history, we are all being collectivized and ordered to purchase a service or product simply because we live and breathe in the United States. To many of us, this is the proverbial ‘burning the barn to roast the pig’ approach to insuring the uninsured, if that is really the goal.
.
In other words, Mr. Silva, this is either the most expensive, grandiose, round-the-world way of accomplishing the task of insuring the uninsured, or it is the biggest attempt in history by the federal government to seize and consolidate central control over our lives and the economy. I have my serious doubts that it is the former.
Posted by: John W. | November 30, 2009 3:55 PM
people are not opposed to health care. What they are opposed to is the government taking over 1/6th of the economy. "
That's part of the problem, and why we need SP or a robust public option.
Health care should NOT be 1/6 of the economy.
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | November 30, 2009 2:49 PM
C Morris- You may be right, generally , that health care should not be 1/6th of the economy- the reality is that the health care industry should be whatever % of the economy that consumers make it... that’s how capitalism works. Believe it or not- we are still-despite Professor Obama’s efforts- by law a free market based country...
-
Check the price of elective procedures like laser eye surgery or elective plastic surgeries that are not covered by third party providers to see what benefits there are to a free market solution to correcting the cost of health care.
-
Bottom line is that consumers have not made health care the size it is-mindless government regulations, protectionism and intervention have skewed the market to the point that the industry is now 1/6th of the economy- when you consider that a huge % of the cost of delivering health care is regulation driven and has nothing to do with health care... Defensive medicine, protected markets, insurance companies not able to expand risk pools, horrible tax laws drive any competition out of the market- its a relatively fundamental economic concept that taking the free market out of the health care system is what has driven costs so high.
-
Right now government provided health care accounts for 50% of health care spending- Medicare fraud alone is billions/year.. - And your answer (single payer) is more government control- ?
Posted by: heartburn | November 30, 2009 4:22 PM
Smart people know that this simply cannot go on and that our government has a constitutional duty to protect it's citizens from such injustices. The current arrangement is unsustainable and the economy simply will never recover unless there is healthcare reform with a public option.
Posted by: writerofwrongs | November 30, 2009 2:58 PM
Really- Where exactly does the constitution indicate that the government has this duty?
Posted by: heartburn | November 30, 2009 4:25 PM
Here is one reason why:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Posted by: FLZapped | November 30, 2009 4:29 PM
hb,
'Promote the general welfare'
Healthcare is certainly that.
Posted by: T. Herman Zweibel | November 30, 2009 8:59 PM
hb,
'Promote the general welfare'
Healthcare is certainly that.
Posted by: T. Herman Zweibel | November 30, 2009 8:59 PM
Promote does not equal provide.
Health care may be part of the general welfare...But there is a BIG difference in the verbs promote and provide... this bill is meant to provide health care coverage to a small % of the population at the expense of a large portion of the population...That is nothing like promoting the general welfare ..
Posted by: heartburn | November 30, 2009 9:20 PM
“No, actually Obamacare is the opposition's preferred euphemism for people oppose the president's plan to insure Americans who are uninsured.”
.
Posted by: Mark Silva | November 30, 2009 1:02 PM
That's about as intellectually bankrupt as you can be.
As others have said it's not about insuring Americans that aren't insured. That could have been done long ago, and it wouldn't take a government takeover of the healthcare system to accomplish. The plan will FORCE younger workers to buy insurance. Well hopefully they will be workers some day in the future when Mr Redistribution is no longer in the White House and businesses are no longer being treated like the next meal for the blood sucking government vampires. Then maybe they can find jobs before they retire.
Anyway, I'm sure you liberals will find me heartless for not wanting to fine and penalize young people that don't want health insurance or can't afford it. You guys are the best. Always looking out for your Big government heroes.
Posted by: Free to Watch Whatever I Want | November 30, 2009 11:02 PM
PLEASE GOD GIVE US OBAMA-CARE AND TRUE HEALTH CARE REFORM WITH A ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION. ANYBODY WHO CAN'T SEE THAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS CRIPPLING AMERICA ARE LIVING WITH THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND. THIS COUNTRY SPENDS SO MUCH ON PORK, LET'S SPEND IT TO PROVIDE THE PROPER LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE HEALTH TO ALL "LEGAL" AMERICAN CITIZENS, EXCLUDING ABORTIONS. I'M A WOMAN AGAINST ABORTIONS!!!!!
Posted by: Jean B | November 30, 2009 11:13 PM
heartburn:
Smart people know that this simply cannot go on and that our government has a constitutional duty to protect it's citizens from such injustices. The current arrangement is unsustainable and the economy simply will never recover unless there is healthcare reform with a public option.
Posted by: writerofwrongs | November 30, 2009 2:58 PM
Really- Where exactly does the constitution indicate that the government has this duty?
~~~~~~~~~~
read the preample to the constitution. Note the phrases
" common good " & " justice"
Posted by: writerofwrongs | December 1, 2009 9:19 AM
read the preample to the constitution. Note the phrases
" common good " & " justice"
Posted by: writerofwrongs | December 1, 2009 9:19 AM
First of all the preamble is not law- it grants no powers... it is for context only.
Second- where is the justice in the government requiring an individual mandate -enforceable by law if passed - requiring the purchase of health insurance? Is the common good improved by increasing the cost and decreasing the quality of health care for +90% of the population..?
Where is the precedent or law that makes this legal?
Posted by: heartburn | December 1, 2009 11:12 AM