How the Corporatocracy Fools us into Not Noticing Overwhelming Support for National Health Care

[Time for change]

Americans have long supported a universal national health care plan. Typical of this support was a June 12th poll that showed 72% of Americans in favor of “a government administered health insurance plan that would compete with private health insurance plans”, compared to 20% who opposed. A little over a month later, due to a barrage of insurance company propaganda, the margin of support for that statement was down to 66% in favor to 27% opposed. But nevertheless, American support for a universal national health care plan, as shown by polls worded in numerous different ways, has been consistent over at least two decades.

How then does one explain a July 2009 opinion poll indicating that 42% of Americans believe that President Obama’s health plan is a bad idea, compared to only 36% who say that it’s a good idea? That answer is a combination of corporate propaganda and misleading polling. Most important, we are bombarded by the claim that government will ration health care, thus resulting in so-called “death panels”, while ignoring the fact that health care is already rationed by private health insurance companies, and that a government plan would make health care available to millions of Americans who currently have very limited access to it.


How opinion polls obscure overwhelming support for a public option health care plan

The ability to obscure the overwhelming support for a public option health care plan is made easy by the fact that so many Americans don’t even know what it is. For example, a recent (August 27, 2009) poll by Nate Silver showed that 23% of American admitted they didn’t know what the “public option” is, 13% believe it is a network of health care cooperatives, 26% believed it to be “a national health care system like they have in Great Britain”, and only 37% correctly answer that it is “a government created health insurance company that competes with existing private insurers”.

How widespread ignorance about the nature of the public option results in distorted opinion polling is amply shown by a June 2009 NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. In that poll, when asked the question:

From what you have heard about Barack Obama's health care plan, do you think his plan is a good idea or a bad idea?

only 33% of respondents answered that it was a “good idea”, while 32% answered that it was a “bad idea”. Yet in that very same poll, when asked the question:

In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance?

a whopping 76% said it was either “extremely important” (41%) or “quite important” (35%), compared to only 20% who said that it was “not that important” (12%) or “not at all important” (8%)

In other words, while the public option demonstrated a margin of support of 56% in that poll, the very same poll demonstrated a margin of support for “Barack Obama’s health care plan” of only 1% – even though Obama has said that he supports the public option.

A more recent poll showed even greater support for the public option: 58% said that it is “extremely important” that people are given “a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance”, while another 19% said that it is “quite important”. That poll categorized the responses by several different demographic variables, all of which supported the public option by wide margins when it was explained to them in the above noted words – Even 58% of Republicans said it was “extremely important”, and another 13% of Republicans said it was “quite important”.

Changing the wording of polls to show what you want them to show
But what to do about polls showing that more than three quarters of Americans support the public option? The pollster Bill McInturff, who has strong ties to the insurance industry, had an answer for that. He simply changed the wording of the description of the public option plan. Instead of using the word choice that was used to describe the public option in the June poll, he changed the phrasing to ask whether people favored or opposed creating a public plan to compete with private insurers. With that slight wording change, support for the public option dropped from 76% in June to 43% in August.

So, what is the difference between describing the public option as a choice versus describing it as something that competes with private insurance? In reality there is no difference. It is precisely the fact that the public option will compete with private insurance that means that Americans will have the choice of choosing it or not.

But insurance company propaganda has convinced many Americans otherwise. They actually have somehow convinced many Americans that once a public option is available Americans will have to drop their current health plans and find a different doctor. Essentially, they have made the public option into a public mandate, and the same gullible people who believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya believe that the public option is a mandate. And not only that, but they are led to believe that the public option will withhold from them the ability to choose their own doctor and it will contain “death panels” that will have the power of life and death over them.

It’s all a nasty little trick on the American people. By claiming that the public option is something that it is not, they turn Americans against the label “public option”, even as three quarters of Americans support what the public option actually is. By doing this, the corporatocracy can claim that Americans do not support what they actually do support, and in doing so they make it safe for the politicians that they own to vote against meaningful health care reform.


Ted Kennedy on universal health care

In a Newsweek article published just two months before he died, Senator Kennedy summed up his views on universal health care – a cause that he had fought for throughout his political career.

Why we need universal affordable health care
He begins the article by describing his 1964 plane accident in which he was gravely injured. Noting how fortunate he was to have the money to pay for the life saving health care that he received, and noting as well the health care crisis that he currently faced, he wrote:

I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy. But quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to. This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver… to make sure, as I said, "that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege." For four decades I have carried this cause from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society.

Describing the heartbreak of seeing his son through his bout with cancer, he said:

No parent should suffer that torment. Not in this country. Not in the richest country in the world. That experience with Teddy made it clear to me, as never before, that health care must be affordable and available for every mother or father who hears a sick child cry in the night and worries about the deductibles and co-pays if they go to the doctor.

A history of failed attempts at universal health care, leading to Medicare
He described the failures of the Theodore Roosevelt and Truman presidencies to secure universal health care for the American people, as they came up against the scary phrase “socialized medicine”. Then he came to his brother’s presidency, which coincided with his own entry into politics:

But in the early 1960s, a new young president was determined to take a first step to free the elderly from the threat of medical poverty. John Kennedy called Medicare "one of the most important measures I have advocated." … And I saw how hard he fought as president to pass Medicare. It was a battle he didn't have the opportunity to finish. But I was in the Senate to vote for the Medicare bill before Lyndon Johnson signed it into law.

Teddy’s fight for universal health care
He then goes on to describe his own quest for universal health care:

Some years later, I decided the time was right to renew the quest for universal and affordable coverage. When I first introduced the bill in 1970, I didn't expect an easy victory (although I never suspected that it would take this long). I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise… Health reform became central to my 1980 presidential campaign… When Bill Clinton returned to the issue in the first years of his presidency, I fought the battle in Congress. We lost to a virtually united front of corporations, insurance companies, and other interest groups. The Clinton proposal never even came to a vote. But we didn't just walk away… even though Republicans were again in control of Congress…. I worked… to enact CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program…

Where we are today
Teddy finishes his article by describing our current need for affordable and universal health care. He notes that 47 million Americans are currently uninsured. He says that it must be illegal to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to charge higher premiums to the elderly or to women. He discusses the importance of preventive care. He discusses the urgent need to control costs. He discusses the necessity of the public option. And he ends by saying:

I believe the bill will pass, and we will end the disgrace of America as the only major industrialized nation in the world that doesn't guarantee health care for all of its people… And I am resolved to see to it this year that we create a system to ensure that someday, when there is a cure for the disease I now have, no American who needs it will be denied it.

[Champion Jack]

1. K & R

[patrice]

2. Polls ARE businesses. They sell what the customer wants. People are waaay more dynamic than

polls show. They also say one thing and do another.

I am convinced that in the privacy of the voting booth there are going to be a whole heck of a lot fewer people angry about a STRONG Public Option than the Media says.

[Time for change]

3. Yes, and they also sell what their corporate sponsors want

[nashville_brook]

4. taking time out from this week's Moyers... the untold story is the quality of care

in addition to everything else.

[bertman]

5. I hate to say this, but I DON'T know what the public option is. I know what I THINK it's

SUPPOSED to be and what I would LIKE it to be, but I did not know it has even been formulated in full. My impression is that there are competing versions of the public option, including the "exchange" (whatever that is) and co-ops (I know they are p.o.s.), as well as other versions that are still being cobbled together--and dismantled as quickly as they are constructed.

Does the public option pay for abortions? I hope so, but I'm hearing from everyone from the President down that it will not.

Is the public option available to anyone who wants to sign up, or is it only for those desperate individuals who don't already have some kind of health insurance policy?

Is it a fact that even those who have no insurance now will not be eligible to sign up for the public option until 2013?

I agree with you, Time for change, that here has been a masterful effort to portray Americans as being opposed to a public option, but I also think there's been an abysmally poor effort by the administration to define what it is. If in fact, it is.

Do I have to read a 2000 page bill to know what the provisions of the public option option are?

HELP!!!!

[Time for change]

6. I agree with you bertman

Actually, it was defined much more clearly by all three of the top Democratic candidates in the run up to the 2008 election, than it is now. There are three basic principles on which they all agreed (in addition to lots of details that were provided):
1. It should be availabe to anyone who wants it.
2. It should provide decent health care at an affordable price.
3. It should help to control costs.

Any plan that doesn't meet those basic principles will be a disaster, and should be voted down.

I talk more about the issue in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5843933

Unfortunately IMO, Obama has become much less specific about his plan since he transformed from candidate to President. I am very disappointed in that. Not only are many of the additional details now missing, but it is unclear whether he intends to keep to the basic principles or even include a public option at all.

Certainly the question of what constitutes "decent health care" is a question that can be debated. I believe that it should pay for abortions, for example, but it seems very possible, or even likely, that it won't, in order to placate the right.

I should also note that, once it is agreed that the public option will meet the basic principles specified above, the remaining questions about its details are similar to the questions that would apply to a single payer plan. Just as a public option plan might not cover abortions (or many other specific procedures), the same thing could apply to a single payer plan.

[unlawflcombatnt]

11. I can help with that

I've done multiple posts at Examiner.com on the "public option."

Though the current health care legislation pending in Congress, HR 3200, has many bad aspects, the one truly beneficial one is the "public health insurance option." And this "public option is a favorite of the People, with a recent CBS poll showing that 72% of Americans favor a public option. In contrast, on most other provisions there is considerable disagreement.

Despite what critics say, the public option provisions of the legislation is crystal clear on one major point: the cost. It requires $0.00 of government/taxpayer funding. This is spelled out clearly in the bill. There is a startup cost of $2 billion--less than the cost of "cash-for-clunkers." And even this is to be paid back with interest. Regarding the "public option," premiums will be paid by enrollees to completely cover the predicted cost of medical care, as well as covering the administrative costs. Again, as stated in the current bill, the public health insurance option does not cost taxpayers a penny over the long run. (The $2 billion start-up will be paid back within the 1st year through premiums.)

The summary put out by the Government states the following:

""
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

The public health insurance option is described from pages 116-124 of the current legislation--HR 3200. Below is an excerpt, starting on page 118:

23 SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.

24 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—
The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner—
(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and
(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of—
(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
(ii) administrative costs related to op erating the public health insurance option.

(2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN.—In establishing premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include an appropriate amount for a contingency margin.
(b) ACCOUNT.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Treasury of the United States an Account for the receipts and disbursements attributable to the operation of the public health insurance option, including the start-up funding under paragraph (2).
Section 1854(g) of the Social Security Act shall apply to receipts described in the previous sentence in the same manner as such section applies to payments or premiums described in such section.

(2) START-UP FUNDING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—In order to provide for the establishment of the public health insurance option there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000. In order to provide for initial claims reserves before the collection of premiums, there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as necessary to cover 90 days worth of claims reserves based on projected enrollment.

(B) AMORTIZATION OF START-UP FUNDING.—
The Secretary shall provide for the repayment of the startup funding provided under subparagraph (A) to the Treasury in an amortized manner over the 10-year period beginning with Y1.

(C) LIMITATION ON FUNDING.—Nothing in his section shall be construed as authorizing any additional appropriations to the Account,other than such amounts as are otherwise provided with respect to other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

3 SEC. 223. PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES."

It can't get much clearer than that. This "public option" is a privately-paid insurance where the enrollees pay 100% of the costs, and taxpayers pay NOTHING. In fact, there is a provision to "privatize" even the administration of the plan, just like Medicare does.

The only people who have any legitimate reason to oppose this plan are Health Insurance Companies, as this plan will cost less for equal coverage, since it doesn't have to pay CEO salaries & bonuses, management salaries & bonuses, and shareholder dividends.

This plan is modeled after Medicare (as per the wording in the actual legislation), and even uses the same Medicare fee schedules.

There is really nothing to dislike about this plan. It doesn't cost taxpayers anything, and it provides the same coverage as Medicare.

Don't let health insurance companies fool you. This is not "government-run" healthcare. It's just non-insurance-company-run health care. It replaces the medical decision making of private bureaucrats with decision-making by doctors and patients.

HR 3200 had much to dislike, but the public insurance option is not one of them.

[bertman]

16. Thank you for the reference, unlawflcombatnt. I downloaded the pdf of HR3200.

I haven't had time to wade through it thoroughly but I did run up against a paragraph under payments that was as turgid and legalistic as a standard health insurance plan description and seemed to say that the covered individual was only covered for 80% of costs over $15,000 and under $90,000.

This is what I am referring to when I say that no one really knows what's in this "public option". Am I supposed to slog through this tome to figure out what the benefits to individual Americans are? If so, I'm afraid that is an unacceptable way to rally my support.

Can someone tell me (and everyone else who is wondering just what this public option specifies) WHO is covered, HOW MUCH the coverage will cost an individual/family, what the COVERAGE LIMITATIONS are, WHEN the coverage goes into effect, etc. etc.?

Having a description in PLAIN ENGLISH that the average reader could grasp would be immensely helpful. Otherwise, only the health insurance lobbyists' lawyers will know what's in this bill.

[tex-wyo-dem]

23. I totally agree with you, bertman...

No one who works for a living, takes care of their family, along with all the other reponsibilities of life, should be expected to slog through the legalese of a massive bill to understand what's in it. This responsibility falls on (1) the news media (and we all know how much they can be counted on -- confusion and clouding by design), and (2) the administration. Both have done a piss poor job at descibing in clear, consise terms what is exactly in the bill.

[sandnsea]

13. A few answers

First, there are currently three bills with each having a slightly different version.

The Exchange or Gateway, is a compilation of traditional insurance that will be open to everyone. No pre-existing, no caps, base plans regulated so everybody knows exactly what they do.

The public option will be a government plan that will have to meet the same criteria as any for profit plan.

Abortion will likely fall under the same laws it does now, in that life and health will be covered.

[bertman]

17. Thank you, sandnsea. What I am looking for, and what would really help us in this debate,

is a comprehensive list of WHO is covered, WHAT the coverage is, HOW MUCH it will cost an individual/family, WHEN it goes into effect, etc., etc. I still have not gotten that from any source. No wonder support for this is dwindling under the onslaught of insurance company propaganda.

[sandnsea]

20. Overview - Kennedy HELP and House Tri-Committee

http://obama-mamas.com/health-care.html

I think I will go through it again this week and try to make a list that is more focused on just the individual and family.

[bertman]

35. Thanks again, sandnsea. I hope you don't feel like I'm taking my frustration out on you.

This entire healthcare reform effort has been fraught with missteps. It's hard to believe that the Obama administration and campaign organization were so ill-prepared to make this happen. This has DLC written all over it.

But, you are one of the calvary to the rescue. Sorry for the venting.

[Time for change]

28. One more idea:

Make use of experts whom we trust.

On health care, I feel that I can virtually take whatever Paul Krugman says to the bank. He's a Nobel Prize winning economist, universal health care is his greatest interest, and he explains things with words that I find very easy to understand, considering the complexity of the topics that he talks about. That it, he doesn't just ask his audience to believe what he says, but he gives detailed, clear explanations, so that we can understand why he recommends what he does.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

7. Too many compromises have been made in the current bill

This means that costs will not be well controlled.
Or it means that Medicare cuts will be harsher than
most of us would like.

I suggest that we need to start over again,
and make fewer compromises. We also need to look
at a model of preventive care that is not so
doctor-dominated.

[Time for change]

9. Too many compromises

If the final bill fails to meet certain basic principles it will be worth than nothing. It would then end up subsidizing the insurance companies. They've already been given their chance. It is now time for the government of the American people to enact a plan that provides for the needs of the American people.

[Overseas]

8. Yes I'm still yearning for that frank talk about our desperate situation and the best option

Still wistfully yearning, I am. For that frank talk we could have had-- from our dear president--

We're in this miserable condition now and we all know it. We tried for years to make things easy for the private insurers but now we have to try something different. We have to approach the problem from a fresh angle and make things easier for our fellow citizens first.

So here's the plan to beat-- Expanding Medicare for All who want it.

That's the compromise-- we're not making things Medicare for All off the bat. We're allowing the private insurers one more chance to compete.

They've already had ten chances and things have gone from bad to worse and we all know it. Millions more are uninsured and bankrupt.

It is time for a change and we're going for single payer because the people are demanding it.

We'll create a regulatory framework so private insurers can explain to their shareholders just why they need to expend cash to cover everyone and curb overhead. They'll have a level playing field on which to make their final plays-- prove to us they can do things better, or use those stunning geniuses they have hired to run their corporations at the rate of $10+ million per year to come up with new business models they can fill.

Perhaps they can get their right wing PR firms to make us all so insecure that we'll dash out for liposuction and face lifts which they can finance.

[Greyhound]

10. Auto K&R.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. K&R

[defendandprotect]

14. Thank you -- a much needed reminder of how the public and polls are manipulated . . .

and the complicity of the corporate press in this corruption --

from stolen elections to fixed polls.

[Time for change]

21. Thank God people are turning away from traditional sources, to the Internet for their main source

of news.

[DailyGrind51]

15. They did the same about opposition to the Iraq War!

Demonstrations took place that received little, if any, MSM coverage!

[Time for change]

24. Yes -- they skewed their coverage on that in any way that they could

Most important, they KNEW that there were no WMD, and they kept silent about it. They could have stopped the war merely by reporting what they knew. But they didn't.

[DailyGrind51]

25. Cindy Sheehan had to "make camp" in Crawford to receive ANY MSM attention.

[Overseas]

18. And I feel like all the talk about how the public option must be revenue neutral

is another way to destroy and delay it. I've heard that term tossed around so much lately. Seems like the next dodge to me.

Why must our health security be revenue neutral when we've just poured billions into a destructive war of choice on Iraq?

Why must getting us out of the desperately insecure morally disgraceful situation of having so many of us uninsured, under-insured and bankrupt from medical bills be revenue neutral?

We watch billions wasted on misguided "national security" programs but can't accept a public option (Medicare for All) that may cost us something as a nation?

I too was stunned by the drop in poll numbers supporting the public option, and then only later finding out in the Huffington Post that a word as important as choice had been dropped from the question. It was most disturbing that the drop in poll numbers was broadly reported but the professional finagling with the terminology wasn't reviewed in most of the same media that trumpeted the drop.

Similar to my frustration at seeing our token liberal shows able to document the right wing PR funding and activism behind the town hall storming and those storms being reported most widely as genuine "grass roots" efforts. I think the professional instigation is a very important part of those stories. More dismal confirmation of the right wing control of most of our TV and radio news.

[Time for change]

19. I agree completely

They have wrested control of the public conversation. Democrats repeat RW talking points, either to avoid being skewered by our RW media or in order to gain corporate financial support. There is no reason on earth that universal health care has to be revenue neutral.

[Overseas]

22. Maybe we can be like Rumsfeld and just tell folks This War will Pay for Itself.

Hey everyone, preventive medicine will knock those billions of dollars of advertising on junk foods right out of the park. The program will pay for itself within three years!

but sadly
we don't have the right wing echo chamber that is our conglomerated corporate media to parrot those statements like the Cheney Rummy team did.

[DemReadingDU]

26. Open up Medicare to the uninsured. Call it the 'Kennedy Option'

If people are uninsured, they sign up for the 'Kennedy Option' (which is Medicare). When sick or have emergency and need to go to doctor or hospital, just show your Kennedy Option ID card.

If people are employed and like their insurance, then fine, don't change. Otherwise, they could pay extra and sign up for the 'Kennedy Option'.

Or, perhaps employers, instead of paying increasing medical costs for employees, employers could take that money previously spent for employee health coverage and give it to employees to find their own insurance...either a private insurance company or the 'Kennedy Option'.

Obviously, I don't have all the details worked out. But the Medicare system is already in place. It just needs to be tweaked and expanded.

[Time for change]

27. That's a great way to describe the situation

[Octafish]

29. Corporate McPravda serves the ownership class.

Newspapers and broadcast journalists once followed the dictum:

"Journalists work to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable."

Today the bosses of the press corpse seem to have gotten something mixed up,
because they now exclusively serve the interests of the "upscale demographic."

[Time for change]

31. As you've noted before Octafish,

It's called Fascism.

[H2O Man]

30. As always,

your contributions are outstanding, and much appreciated.

Recommended.

[Time for change]

34. Thank you

[windoe]

32. K & R

[asdjrocky]

33. It's way past time this happened in America.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm

The most controversial aspect of the plan was the proposed national health insurance plan. In his November 19, 1945 address, President Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund to be run by the federal government. This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give a cash balance to the policy holder to replace wages lost due to illness or injury.

We have been under their heel for far too long.