Poll: Plurality supports single-payer health care

[CherokeeFiddle]

Single payer is widely popular and more people support it than those who don't; Two-thirds of Democratic voters support single-payer. Politico has a great article on this...read below.

Poll: Plurality supports single-payer health care

While Republicans inch toward their latest attempt to roll back the Affordable Care Act, Democrats are having a different debate: whether the party should support a single-payer health care plan. Some Democratic leaders think single-payer goes further than voters might want, but a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows the proposal is fairly popular — at least in principle.

Nearly half of voters, 49 percent, say they support “a single-payer health care system, where all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan” — greater than the 35 percent who oppose such a plan. Seventeen percent of voters have no opinion. Two-thirds of Democratic voters support single-payer, while 18 percent oppose it.

Support among Democratic voters has jumped since the last POLITICO/Morning Consult poll to test a single-payer plan, said Kyle Dropp, co-founder and chief research officer of Morning Consult.

“The surge of support for single-payer health care among Democrats is striking,” Dropp said. “In April, 54 percent of Democrats supported the notion. Just five months later and that support has risen to 67 percent.”

MORE http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/20/single-payer-health-care-poll-242907

[Demsrule86]

1. Very soft...raise taxes and see what happens...can we please stop worrying about single payer and

save the only healthcare we have ever had...the ACA.

[CherokeeFiddle]

2. Nope, we are able to do both.

Raise taxes? Sure but why repeat RW talking points full well knowing that single payer saves people LOTS of $ due to there being no premiums, despite having taxes raised?

[Lunabell]

7. Ikr

This is what people want and it would pay off dividends in the long run. Why should we expect any less than every other nation when it comes to healthcare?

[CherokeeFiddle]

8. Because some are afraid of change

[Demsrule86]

50. The change that I fear is that millions lose their coverage if the ACA goes down...

and the MFA gives the GOP coverage and may allow that to happen. Reality bites, but there is no hope of achieving the MFA for years and years. And if the ACA goes down could be decades.

[CherokeeFiddle]

60. They said the same thing about the ACA

that you are saying here and "no we can't!". People are dying!

[ehrnst]

14. Green Mountain Care tanked in part because the taxes ended up WAY higher than

people were told. And they decided to end it.

And if Democrats aren't honest about what the upfront costs are going to be, that will be used as ammunition by the GOP to shoot it down.

Sanders' bill is going to have to be run by the CBO, and if it turns out to be more expensive and disruptive to the health care system to implement than he claims, we will lose credibility.

Look - I wanted to get geothermal HVAC. I knew that it would make my bills way, way lower. However, once I learned what it would cost, up front, I went with a high efficiency hybrid gas heat pump system.

If a contractor had pooh-poohed the cost of excavating my back yard, by saying that the reported prices paid for geothermal I read about was just "a talking point from Gas industry" then handed me a bill that was way higher than the estimate, I would take that contractor to court.

[Demsrule86]

15. For what purpose? Single payer will not pass without a supermajority.

We have had two supermajorities with the presidency in 30+ years. It is not GOP talking points to say taxes will rise...look at the proposed bill, it has numerous funding plans and all involve raising a tax of some sort. This will be deal breaker with a majority of Americans. I wish it was different, but it isn't. It is not about chewing gum and walking at the same time. It is about not giving wavering GOP Senators and excuse to make the Kochs and their party happy by voting for murdercare...'I had to save us from socialism' gasp,gasp. The word socialism is meaningless to you and me. But it is not to those whom the GOP directs it at. This is why we have a debate with Sen. Sanders. Graham planned it carefully. It could work; we lose the ACA and thousands if not millions die during the no doubt multiple years, we have nothing. It took enormous effort to get the ACA. It would horrific to lose it. This is why it was foolish to even bring this bill up before October 1st, the deadline for the reconciliation process. It would be far easier and could be done in reconciliation to build upon the ACA...this is how we implement universal coverage. It may or may not be MFA, but everyone would be covered. Isn't that the real goal?

[ornotna]

5. So you're part of the 18%?

I have no problem paying more taxes for a more sane and humane health care system.

[Demsrule86]

11. I don't believe people will support single payer at the moment...first of all those

with workplace insurance won't give it up willingly. This is what killed Hillarycare. Secondly, Americans hate taxes. And you can show me poll after poll, but if you run on raising taxes, you lose. I want to win. Many think because they believe something that others also do...that is not usually the case. Support the ACA...there is no way to pass single payer at the moment...probably never. I do think if we save the ACA,we can build on it and get universal coverage similar to Germany and Switzerland.

[Demsrule86]

16. I agree. I would pay higher taxes also.

But do you think a majority of Americans in our center left country will? I don't. There is a reason the repukes asked for a CBO score. They will lose it as a club against us. And that would be fine if we were fighting for a bill that has a chance. But I fail to see the point when it cannot pass.

[ehrnst]

18. What 18%?

Not sure what you are referring to.

Green Mountain Care failed in part because taxes needed to sustain it. And this is in Vermont - which is liberal, and has a lower unemployment rate than the US as a whole. You can't dismiss the effect on the majority of people in the US that their taxes will go up, especially if they have health care coverage they can affort, as "just a GOP talking point." I have a heavily subsidized health care plan - more so than most people, and I would be fine with paying more in taxes to cover more people, but you and I are not the people that need to be convinced.

Shumlin's exploration of a single-payer health care system, which included three assessments by different expert groups, was among the most exhaustive ever conducted in the United States. A 2011 study led by Harvard health economist William Hsiao provided optimistic projections: immediate systemwide savings of 8 to 12% and an additional 12 to 14% over time, or more than $2 billion over 10 years, and requirements for new payroll taxes of 9.4% for employers and new income taxes of 3.1% for individuals to replace health insurance premiums.

..............................................

Two years later, a study by the University of Massachusetts Medical School and Wakely Consulting projected savings of just 1.5% over 3 years. Finally, a 2014 study by Shumlin's staff and consultants predicted 1.6% savings over 5 years and foresaw required new taxes of 11.5% for employers and up to 9.5% for individuals. The governor cited these last projections in withdrawing his plan: “I have learned that the limitations of state-based financing, the limitations of federal law, the limitations of our tax capacity, and the sensitivity of our economy make that unwise and untenable at this time . . . . The risk of economic shock is too high,” Shumlin concluded

Asking the legislature to approve a new 11.5% payroll tax on employers and income taxes on households as high as 9.5% to finance Green Mountain Care would have increased the size of Vermont's 2015 state budget, set at $5.6 billion, by 45%.

Even though the taxes would have replaced private insurance premiums that employers and individuals currently pay, and even though the Internal Revenue Service had agreed that the taxes would be federally deductible, in political terms it would have been a mammoth increase that would have been glaringly evident on every Vermonter's tax bill, unlike employer-based health insurance premiums, which most workers fail to notice. According to research in behavioral economics, people pay more attention to hypothetical losses than to hypothetical gains. The political furor that would certainly have erupted over Shumlin's tax plan — as foreshadowed by the political uproar over the ACA — would have left most Vermonters believing they would be losers. Shumlin's decision to withdraw the plan represented a failure of political will — but sometimes making decisions because of likely political consequences is the necessary, albeit regrettable, thing to do.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1501050#t=article

[ornotna]

38. Its in the OP

Surely you read the the post.

[Demsrule86]

56. Nice try. I support universal coverage and wish to achieve it without killing thousands of people.

You know many of you speak in theory...but I have a cousin who died in a boating accident weeks before the ACA was implemented. The closest private hospital refused to perform life saving surgery. The indifference to what losing the ACA would mean to people is shocking to see on a progressive website...not saying you.

[ehrnst]

63. Yep, strawmen by the gross around here.

[Demsrule86]

64. Yes, people who think MFA is around the corner based on some poll...who

refuse to recognize that it is in fact years away are the true progressives. Why anyone else who has a different opinion is a 'concern troll'(sarcasm). If we have a different opinion on what universal coverage should look like or how it could be achieved why we are attacking Sen. Sanders. He did after all sponsor the MFA. Thus, everyone must support it or we are 'punching hippies', and somehow we are attacking Sen. Sanders. There is little mention or even moderate concern for the thousands perhaps millions who could die without the ACA.

I am so not sorry that my posts are offensive to you and some of the others. A dose of reality is a good thing now and again. There is no way to achieve MFA without a supermajority. We have had two such majorities with the presidency twice in 30+ years. We will never achieve MFA with a stand alone bill which will be doomed just as Hillarycare was unless more people who currently have work coverage and will not willingly give it up somehow lose such coverage. We can get universal coverage if we add a public option to the ACA, lower the age of Medicare to 55. This helps younger workers too as it opens up jobs. At this point, we can continue to lower the Medicare age and end with MFA or we can, through reconciliation, add strong price controls, a non-profit mandate for participatory insurance companies and end up with a system like Germany's. Either way we achieve universal coverage which is my goal. I have no interest in promoting a bill that will surely fail.

I resent being called any of sort troll or hint hint...maybe a Russian disruptor because I have a different opinion and am not swayed by 'who' introduced a bill or if he is really,really popular but by whether it is possible to achieve what the bill calls for or not. In this case, it is not possible.

[guillaumeb]

52. A false choice.

Raising taxes while eliminating premiums is the actual choice, and the premiums would be lower.

Every country with single payer covers its citizens for less than the US requires. An actual fact, as opposed to rhetoric.

[RandySF]

3. Let's focus on what's right in front of us.

If people chase after single-payer this moment at ignore the jeopardy of losing the ACA, we'll have nothing at all.

[Demsrule86]

17. That is what I am saying...we have the ACA...we gave up a majority to get it...and we have not shot

at single payer at the moment.

[Ninsianna]

4. Awesome, which form is getting wide support?

Just the name, or a specific plan? Where in the poll does it break down the plan? Is it Canada, or Taiwan's?

Do these people who are so excited by Single payer know what it is? Are they excited about France's plan, or the UK's?

Do they know how Medicare works, or that expanding it for all would still require private health insurance, like every other country has? Do they know how much it would cost?

Or is it just about notions? Cause lots of notions are wildly popular, but people balk at putting them into practice for a whole hosts of reasons.

What are these people who are opposing it being asked, why don't they like the notion?

If these questions are not asked or answered, what's the point of these popularity polls?

[ehrnst]

19. +1000. (nt)

[lapucelle]

6. We don't have the actual Senate bill yet, so we don't know the details.

However, in the past, Senate versions of single payer have called for:

"...fifty state health insurance plans, plus possibly D.C. and each territory, for all citizens and lawful aliens."

If 49% of Americans support "“a single-payer health care system, where all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan,” then the House version may be a better fit.

http://www.md.pnhp.org/docs/Comparison-HR676-and-S703.pdf

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676_and_S915

[Demsrule86]

51. The bill was introduced the same day as murdercare...how do we not have details?

[Vinca]

9. But it's impossible because of the profit-loving, money-worshipping Republicans.

If you can't make money off a cancer patient, they see no point in healthcare.

[Weekend Warrior]

10. We are heading in the right direction. Nt

[Demsrule86]

20. Not if we lose the ACA...if that happens we won't have any healthcare at all .

We would need 60 votes at least in the Senate, a majority in the House and the presidency. It has happened twice in 30 + years. It would be smarter to use the ACA to achieve universal coverage.

[Weekend Warrior]

33. "Not if we lose the ACA...if that happens we won't have any healthcare at all ."

I don't believe that to be an accurate statement.

If it is repealed it will be a big step backward.

I think the ACA is a positive as we head toward universal healthcare, will be an important tool as more people warm up to the idea, but won't be the actual final vehicle for universal healthcare. The next major change to the ACA, if it holds, would be a public option. That alone is far from universal healthcare and will further the multi-tiered system we have today. The move would be huge and positive but leave us a long way from universal healthcare. Using the ACA as the main vehicle will keep us a long time out from everyone being able to have consistent healthcare.

[Demsrule86]

53. Well I guess the millions who lose coverage and the thousands who die will have to take one

for the team. I mean single payer is so important that even though it is an impossibility for maybe years...it must be put on the front burner and dusted off periodically I suppose. Why should we give to shits for those that suffer...it is for the greater good (sarcasm). This is kind of a heartless approach.

The ACA will have to be the final vehicle for universal coverage because you will never get MFA through Congress without a supermajority and the presidency and even then...it may not pass. And the resulting shit storm if it passed because it is always tough with anything new would most like sweep the GOP into office who would promptly repeal it.

[Arazi]

12. I hope to see single payer in the next 10 years. Glad the ball is rolling

Conyers and Sanders

[Demsrule86]

21. I hope to see pink unicorns...you have about the same chance.

[CherokeeFiddle]

24. Sich negativity on single payer

We're moving ahead in the fight for Medicare For All, feel free to join us at anytime

[Demsrule86]

26. I will not waste my time fighting for something that won't happen. I will on the other hand

fight as hard as I can for universal coverage which is achievable in the next 10 years...building off the ACA...first a public option and let's lower the medicare age to 55...this helps older folks with premium prices and takes pressure off the exchanges. It also allows older folks to retire earlier. Many are waiting for Medicare. This would help the economy by getting more millennial in the workforce Thus improving the economy as well:win, win.

We can achieve a system like Germany's or Switzerland. Affordable universal coverage is the goal...MFA is only one way of achieving this...there are other methods that will work better in this country.

[CherokeeFiddle]

34. You're going against the very thing that will bring voters to the polls

in both 2018 and 2020. Full stop.

Building off the ACA is NOT the solution. It is a temporary fix. It allows insurance companies to be in charge and we'll continue to pay dearly for the cost of prescriptions. You cite Switzerland yet are you aware that drugs in Switzerland are some of the most regulated in the world? How do you plan to PASS THAT if you say that single payer won't even pass?

"Affordable health care" is a Republican talking point similar to "access" to health care. INSURING EVERYBODY is the goal. Not everybody can "afford" health insurance. Under a single payer system, people would be able to because it is paid for out of taxes.

Using your own logic,I'd love to know how you somehow think that Congress is going to allow us to have a public option and that red states will magically adopt Medicaid.

To quote Harry Reid;

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/10/reid-says-obamacare-just-step-toward-eventual-sing

[Demsrule86]

35. It won't bring voters to the polls. Support is soft...tell me how you convince people who get

workplace insurance to give it up willingly? It won't happen. The GOP will demonize it completely as they did with the ACA. It was only thought implementation that people realized the GOP was wrong and came to believe healthcare is a right. You might as well cede 18 if you run on single payer...already the GOP is gearing up for the smear campaign...Fight for an improved ACA and we win ...single payer...we lose. Sen. Reid said we can use the ACA...and he is right...by adding a pubic option and lowering the medicare age gradually.

[CherokeeFiddle]

37. Single payer will bring out voters in droves

and support is ANYTHING BUT soft. In fact, it a hot topic issue and something the majority of American's now want.

Again, more RW talking points with "workplace insurance", the very same argument that the GOP is using this very instant to discredit Medicare For All.

Now let me show the flip side of the coin.

Consider this; with single payer, employers wouldn't be burdened with providing health insurance to their employees and people wouldn't be trapped in a job that they can't leave to due to them having health insurance.

The GOP will demonize it? If you're worried about that then why give them ammo to do so? Again, using your logic, why do you believe that the ACA will be improved when single payer isn't a reality according to you? Also again, the ACA allows big pharma and the health care industry to be in charge. It IS a Republican plan. Reid said that the ACA is a stepping stone to single payer, he is correct, it is just that and that stepping stone has been in effect for nearly a decade now. People are still dying from not having health insurance. This is a reality.

Health care spending is currently higher than what we would spend on single payer. It has been known for decades that single payer is cheaper

[ehrnst]

39. Yes - and an electric car is cheaper to run. It's the sticker price

that is the issue.

You seem to want to avoid that detail.

Along with the discussion among health policy experts that a four year implementation would greatly disrupt the actual delivery of health care.

Physicians are not health policy experts. You can see that by the number of physicians who oppose legal abortion.

And what data do you have to support your claim that "single payer will bring out voters in droves?"

[CherokeeFiddle]

40. Last I looked

The Volt & LEAF were rather affordable and then you have the tax incentives as well.

Awful comparison.

[ehrnst]

41. Well, if you make more than the median income they are "rather affordable"

Perhaps your rebuttal was an even worse comparison if you're trying to make the case that SP is "affordable."

How about geothermal HVAC? If you have property with a lake, it's more affordable, because you don't need excavation.

If you live on a small piece of land, the excavation makes it much less affordable, but people who have no clue about that would point to the person with the lake, and tell you it's TOTALLY doable, and the lower utility bills make it really a great deal for the people with the lake.

[CherokeeFiddle]

42. They are $30k,

They aren't Tesla's & are aimed at median incomes

[ehrnst]

43. Yes, I'm sure all the people struggling to pay for health care

would find that a $30k car "affordable."

Nice try, but you are lessening your "affordable" case with every furiously typed rebuttal to my posts.

But hey - one needs to get that post count up wherever and as fast as one can, right newbie?

[CherokeeFiddle]

44. Now you want to argue with me about the price of cars? lol

And who they are aimed at as far as pricing goes? Really?

Post count? Uh ya, you go with that

[ehrnst]

45. Went right along with it, didn't you?

Couldn't walk away, then got caught in your own rebuttals.

"Newbie...." Been here only a week...

[CherokeeFiddle]

46. And? So what if if I'm new on DU?

Perhaps you could say "welcome to DU!"

[Demsrule86]

47. You did not explain how people who get work place insurance will be convinced to support single

payer. They are the majority and must be convinced...if we caused the to lose their insurance via cheapness by their employers... we are screwed. I believe we can put a public option in place using reconciliation if the ACA is saved and won't have to wait for a super majority which could take years. Also we might be able to lower the age of medicare...we would have to do a stand alone bill for MFA...and it can't be done in reconciliation.

[Demsrule86]

48. I think just the opposite will happen. The GOP will demonize MFA

which they will call socialized medicine...and we will lose 18 and if we continue 20. Run on the fixing the ACA and implementing cost controls. We can win that way.

[ehrnst]

13. Support for single-payer falls by 10 to 20 percentage points when people are read common criticisms,

such as that it will increase taxes or give the government too much control over health care. Arguments in favor, including that single payer will make health a basic right or reduce administrative costs, increase support by similar amounts.

http://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-but-malleable-support-for-single-payer-health-care/

[Demsrule86]

22. This will be tough. It will make the ACA look like a walk in the park...

millions will lose workplace insurance (think Hlllarycare), there will be endless talk about rationing care, thousands will lose their jobs in insurance companies , some insurance companies will fail, taxes will go up significantly (most Americans hate taxes), and of course there will be administrative issues...there always are. And when we lose the majority which we will. The GOP will repeal it.

It is a better idea to build on the ACA...without the fuss and the muss of forcing through a stand alone bill which everyone will hate...bet on it. And of course the GOP will fan the flames of such hate just as they did with the ACA.

[Quixote1818]

29. Which is why you have to explain to them that they will ultimately save thousands

by not paying premiums. It's a pretty simple argument to win. Not brain surgery.

[ehrnst]

32. You are forgetting the sheer amount of misinformation still going around about the ACA.

And the dismissal here on DU to deep analysis of the costs of single payer shows that confirmation bias is very strong on both the left and the right

No, it will not be a simple argument to make. Remember "you can keep your own doctor?" That gaffe was used to discredit anything else Obama said about the ACA.

And when you say that "people will save thousands," many will point out (some here on DU) that they pay more since the ACA was implemented, so that won't be as simple to make as one thinks.

Green Mountain Care wound up being tanked in part because the taxes that were going to be levied to sustain it were to high - even for a liberal enclave like Vermont. So, that's going to be pointed out by opponents to oppose it on a federal level.

It's not the people who don't have affordable health care that need to be convinced, it's those who have affordable health care - which is the majority of Americans right now. And that's not a simple task.

[oberliner]

23. According to that poll, plurality also supports free college and universal basic income

With free college, it's actually a majority, not just a plurality.

Similar numbers for forgiving student debt and raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

Also interesting - Hillary Clinton has a 56-38 unfavorable rating, while Trump is 51-44 unfavorable. Bernie is 51-37 favorable.

[CherokeeFiddle]

25. And there it is!

[ehrnst]

27. And if that majority becomes a minority?

Do we just drop our support?

If not, then we aren't really using polling to make the case for something being worth pursuing, are we?

[oberliner]

28. Of course not

But a poll like this indicates that perhaps more people support these ideas than one would believe from what sees on tv and whatnot.

[ehrnst]

31. Polls responses can be malleable, depending on what is actually asked.

For instance, a huge number of those polled about the ACA when it was being proposed were against it.

That was used by the GOP to oppose the ACA.

But when those polled learned about individual aspects of it, more favored it - indicating a lack of understanding of the ACA influenced how people felt about it.

There is a similar polling effect with Single Payer:

http://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-but-malleable-support-for-single-payer-health-care/

From the article in the OP about the Harris/Morning Consult poll:

Single-payer was part of a battery of questions on four progressive proposals, but those questions did not include any mentions of funding mechanisms for these programs.

In other words - there were no questions concerning the cost to the individual for this.


From the KFF findings:

The poll finds the public’s attitudes on single-payer are quite malleable, and some people could be convinced to change their position after hearing typical pro and con arguments that might come up in a national debate. For example, when those who initially say they favor a single-payer or Medicare-for-all plan are asked how they would feel if they heard that such a plan would give the government too much control over health care, about four in ten (21 percent of the public overall) say they would change their mind and would now oppose the plan, pushing total opposition up to 62 percent. Similarly, when this group is told such a plan would require many Americans to pay more in taxes or that it would eliminate or replace the Affordable Care Act, total opposition increases to 60 percent and 53 percent, respectively.

[oberliner]

36. That's true

But this was a pretty detailed poll with a variety of very specific questions related to health care and other topics. I agree that if the poll explicitly mentioned raising taxes then the results would probably be different.

[Demsrule86]

49. And have we achieved any of the above?

[oberliner]

55. We got a tax hike on the wealthy during the Obama presidency

For what that is worth.

[Demsrule86]

57. Most of the tax cuts were for the ACA.

"But claims that Obama dramatically raised taxes -- as was frequently charged by his opponents -- were exaggerations designed to rile up the Republican base. While Obama did raise some taxes, mostly to pay for Obamacare, there was no major tax overhaul of the kind Trump and Republicans hope to accomplish. In fact, in 2013 Obama signed a compromise bill making permanent the tax cuts enacted by his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.
As of 2013, the Tax Policy Center found that, under Obama, the top 1% of earners paid an effective federal tax rate of roughly 32%, compared to about 27% under Bush. But middle earners paid roughly 12%, almost exactly the same as under the previous president, while low earners paid a bit less -- about 2.3%, rather than 3.5%.The tax changes under Obama basically fell into two buckets: Obamacare tax increases, and tax cut extensions."

http://time.com/money/4630346/president-obama-taxes-increase-obamacare/

[oberliner]

58. The effective federal tax rate for the top 1% went up from 27% to 32% under Obama

(according to the excerpt you provided)

So that is at least something of a tax increase for the super wealthy.

[vi5]

30. Yeah, but....

...Bernie Sanders doesn't have a D after his name so......I'm supposed to be against this.

When someone with a D after their name is pushing for this and getting the credit then I'll support it.

Can someone call Joe Manchin and let me know what he thinks?

[LuvLoogie]

54. 80 to 90 percent support background checks and registration for firearms...

What gives?

[CherokeeFiddle]

59. Bernie supports background checks

and we are talking about single payer.

[nolabels]

61. It's all about who makes money off of it

Even if 98% supported support background checks and registration for firearms we wouldn't get as long the gun manufacturers have the gop in their back pockets.

It is pretty easy to imagine how much of a fight single-payer or universal healthcare is going to be in the near future.

We live on the myth of money and as long the tide is high for it little will change

[Snackshack]

62. Amazing.

There is a Senator (who's name must not be spoken). Who is not a Democrat as is frequently pointed out yet has aligned himself with Democrats when casting his votes for decades. That is finally after decades of silence from anyone in congress pushing a Medical Single Payer program which in turn is starting a debate/conversation about that program...

...and Democrats are arguing against it...

Amazing.