New Poll: 65% of Americans Want Public Option

Bluegrass

Former Staff
Apr 2007
4,992
1,672
The New York Times released poll results that indicate 65% of Americans support a public option, while 26% oppose.



Respondents also said Obama has not been clear about his plan, which amounted to 55% in the poll. This would explain his low marks on how he is handling health reform.



But what is most starkly defined in the poll is how the Republicans are being seen. 76% responded that the Republicans have not been clear about their plan.





http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html
 
Nov 2007
11,730
5,825
NE Wisconsin
[quote name='Bluegrass' date='26 September 2009 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1254000471' post='28227']

The New York Times released poll results that indicate 65% of Americans support a public option, while 26% oppose.



Respondents also said Obama has not been clear about his plan, which amounted to 55% in the poll. This would explain his low marks on how he is handling health reform.



But what is most starkly defined in the poll is how the Republicans are being seen. 76% responded that the Republicans have not been clear about their plan.





http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html

[/quote]



Very interesting Blue. Thanks for posting this. I agree with the public option.
 
Sep 2007
4,553
253
The tide of approval for Obama seems to be tied to approval for HR3200. And it's leveled off since his speech. The GOP has run out of things to say. The Teabgggers have shot thier wads, and town hall screamers are officially passe'



Now is a perfect time for reconciliation if it would work. If they get over this hurdle, the southern GOP can go home and do something productive like polish thier floors wearing curtains like Scarlett. Some people think it's good to have healthy opposition...well...if by healthy they mean bible thumping, anti education, anti gay rights, anti choice, and pro war platforms...screw healthy opposition.
 

Bluegrass

Former Staff
Apr 2007
4,992
1,672
[quote name='Goldwater' date='26 September 2009 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1254004695' post='28258']

The tide of approval for Obama seems to be tied to approval for HR3200. [/quote]



This was my initial hypothesis, and I don't particularly like to say "I told you so" to others, but those who tied Obama's slipping approval to "Americans rejecting the public option" were flat wrong. They couldn't have been more wrong. It was slipping because Americans want the public option.



Kucinich needs to step up now, and keep this on the table, because frankly, without the public option, there is no real reform.



And it's leveled off since his speech. The GOP has run out of things to say. The Teabgggers have shot thier wads, and town hall screamers are officially passe'


The cleanup has begun, and Purell should be in high demand.



Now is a perfect time for reconciliation if it would work. If they get over this hurdle, the southern GOP can go home and do something productive like polish thier floors wearing curtains like Scarlett. Some people think it's good to have healthy opposition...well...if by healthy they mean bible thumping, anti education, anti gay rights, anti choice, and pro war platforms...screw healthy opposition.


The problem is that they aren't "opposition" in the sense of bringing a thought out, well put together argument. They are merely opposition in a more mindless, rabid way. It's actually not opposition, it's obstructionism. That isn't "balance", that is imbalance, because all it aims to do is muddy the issues with nonsensical kneejerk reactionism.
 
Oct 2009
379
0
[quote name='Bluegrass' date='26 September 2009 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1254000471' post='28227']

The New York Times released poll results that indicate 65% of Americans support a public option, while 26% oppose.



Respondents also said Obama has not been clear about his plan, which amounted to 55% in the poll. This would explain his low marks on how he is handling health reform.



But what is most starkly defined in the poll is how the Republicans are being seen. 76% responded that the Republicans have not been clear about their plan.





http://www.nytimes.c.../25pollgrx.html

[/quote]





If you call areas of the country e.g. Berkley, Ca or other liberal havens, of course your going to get the answers and percentages you set out to achieve. In my view, this is just more propaganda from the leftist printing presses.
 

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
51,974
38,868
Pennsylvania, USA
[quote name='nomadrider' date='05 October 2009 - 10:02 PM' timestamp='1254794520' post='33265']

If you call areas of the country e.g. Berkley, Ca or other liberal havens, of course your going to get the answers and percentages you set out to achieve. In my view, this is just more propaganda from the leftist printing presses.[/quote]

The polling figures were based on nationwide telephone interviews with 1,042 adults.
 
Oct 2007
2,136
682
Utah
What percent of Americans want a government-run single payer system? Because that is what the public option will eventually become over time.
 
Oct 2009
150
0
[quote name='Christopher' date='10 October 2009 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1255201318' post='35707']

What percent of Americans want a government-run single payer system? Because that is what the public option will eventually become over time.

[/quote]



I'm not so sure about that Chris. Has the US post office driven Fedex and UPS out of business? Yes, it will definitely "force" competition, but I truly don't believe it's the intent of government to take over the entire system. Eventually (mho), a balance will be reached.



Personally, I don't favor a single payor system. The reason is I believe it would result in lower quality care overall. Nobody begrudges doctors and other health care providers from making a very good living.



Problems manifest when either extreme is attained. With a single payor, much of the problems we see in the UK and Canada would appear, resulting in lower quality care. Conversely, focus shifts to "making a profit" instead of "providing care", and the result is the same. The public "option" does nothing more than stimulate competition in the absence of lower demand. It's a wonderful "balance" that will promote the best of both (mho).



-sensored
 
Oct 2007
2,136
682
Utah
[quote name='CommonSensor' date='10 October 2009 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1255226956' post='35846']

I'm not so sure about that Chris. Has the US post office driven Fedex and UPS out of business? Yes, it will definitely "force" competition, but I truly don't believe it's the intent of government to take over the entire system. Eventually (mho), a balance will be reached.



Personally, I don't favor a single payor system. The reason is I believe it would result in lower quality care overall. Nobody begrudges doctors and other health care providers from making a very good living.



Problems manifest when either extreme is attained. With a single payor, much of the problems we see in the UK and Canada would appear, resulting in lower quality care. Conversely, focus shifts to "making a profit" instead of "providing care", and the result is the same. The public "option" does nothing more than stimulate competition in the absence of lower demand. It's a wonderful "balance" that will promote the best of both (mho).



-sensored

[/quote]



I'll explain why I believe this, then. For one reason, Obama has said that it is the way to get to a single payer system when he campaigned last year. He said this back when he said he was a supporter of single payer, and he has since "changed his tune". Another reason is that one of the persons responsible for crafting the public option said that it was set up to move to single payer. Here is a WSJ article (I know it is an op-ed, but it quotes a person who helped come up with the public option architecture). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124709618142215031.html

Here is a quote from the article quoting this person last year in a speech:

A rhetorical gong Mr. Obama has been banging a lot lately is the idea that the people pointing all this out are liars. "When you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care," he said in one speech, "know this: They're not telling the truth." He adds that opposition to a public option isn't "based on any evidence" and that it is "illegitimate" to argue that his program is "is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system."



So much for changing the political tone. Perhaps the President should check in with his more honest liberal allies. Jacob Hacker, now a professor of political science at Berkeley, came up with the intellectual architecture for the public option when he was a graduate student in the 1990s. "Someone once said to me, 'This is a Trojan horse for single payer,' and I said, 'Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there,'" Mr. Hacker explained in a speech last year. "I'm telling you, we're going to get there, over time, slowly."