Why Government Health Care Keeps Falling in the Polls

[Zacha341]

Why Government Health Care Keeps Falling in the Polls


The health-care debate is part of a larger moral struggle over the free-enterprise system.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...591949574.html

By ARTHUR C. BROOKS

Regardless of how President Barack Obama's health-care agenda plays out in Congress, it has not been a success in public opinion. Opposition to ObamaCare has risen all year.

According to the Gallup polling organization, the percentage of Americans who believe the cost of health care for their families will "get worse" under the proposed reforms rose to 49% from 42% in just the past month. The percentage saying it would "get better" stayed at 22%.

Many are searching for explanations. One popular notion is that demagogues in the media are stirring up falsehoods against what they say is a long-overdue solution to the country's health-care crisis.

Americans deserve more credit. They haven't been brainwashed, and they aren't upset merely over the budget-busting details. Rather, public resistance stems from the sense that the proposed reforms do violence to three core values of America's free enterprise culture: individual choice, personal accountability, and rewards for ambition.

First, Americans recoil at policies that strip choices from citizens and pass them to bureaucrats. ObamaCare systematically does so. The current proposals in Congress would effectively limit choice across the entire spectrum of health care: What kind of health insurance citizens can buy, what kind of doctors they can see, what kind of procedures their doctors will perform, what kind of drugs they can take, and what treatment options they may have.

Meanwhile, ObamaCare would limit the ability of people to choose affordable insurance coverage through less-comprehensive, consumer-driven insurance plans. And it wouldn't allow Americans to shop for better health-care plans from out-of-state carriers.

Second, Americans believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our actions. Many citizens bitterly view the auto and Wall Street bailouts as gifts to people who took imprudent risks, imperiled the entire economic system, and now appear to be walking away from the mess.

Similarly, Americans are cold to a health-care system that effectively rewards individuals for waiting to get insurance until they get sick—subsidizing their coverage by taxing those who responsibly carry insurance in good times and bad.

On its face, the reformers' promise to provide health insurance to nearly all, regardless of pre-existing conditions, is appealing. But as most instinctively realize, if people don't have to worry about carrying insurance until they need it, many won't buy it. Already, the Census Bureau tells us that 21% of the uninsured are in households earning at least $75,000. Although there are certainly plausible reasons for this in some cases, this phenomenon will worsen under ObamaCare.

Third, ObamaCare discourages personal ambition. The proposed reforms will institute a set of government mandates, price controls and other strictures that will make highly trained specialists, drug researchers and medical device makers less valued now and in the future. Americans understand that when you take away the incentive to make money while saving lots of lives, the cures, therapies and medical innovations of tomorrow may never be discovered.

Yet we are told this is all for the best. In his commencement speech at Arizona State University earlier this year, Mr. Obama told the graduates not to "fall back on the formulas of success that have been peddled so frequently in recent years": "You're taught to chase after all the usual brass rings . . . let me suggest that such an approach won't get you where you want to go."

Crass materialism is indeed a tyranny that can lead to personal misery. But most Americans believe it's up to individuals, not a nannying government, to decide what constitutes too much income and too much ambition.

An April 2009 survey conducted by the polling firm Ayers, McHenry & Associates for the conservative nonprofit group Resurgent Republic asked respondents which of the following statements about the role of government came closer to their view: [[a) "Government policies should promote fairness by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, spreading the wealth, and making sure that economic outcomes are more equal"; or [[b) "Government policies should promote opportunity by fostering job growth, encouraging entrepreneurs, and allowing people to keep more of what they earn." Sixty-three percent chose the second option; just 31% chose the first.

This is consistent with nonpartisan surveys showing that most Americans think our increasingly redistributionist government is overstepping its bounds. For example, a September 2009 Gallup Poll found that 57% believe the government is "doing too much"—the highest percentage in more than a decade. Just 38% said it "should do more."

We will continue to hear both sides of the health-care debate argue about particulars of insurance markets, the deficit impacts of reform, and the minutiae of budgetary assumptions. These arguments, while important, do not address the deeper issues involved.

The health-care debate is part of a moral struggle currently being played out over the free enterprise system. It will be replayed in every major policy debate in the coming months, from financial regulatory reform to a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions. The choices will ultimately always come down to competing visions of America's future. Will we strengthen freedom, individual opportunity and enterprise? Or will we expand the role of the state and its power?

Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of "The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America's Future," to be published by Basic Books next June.

[Gannon]

Similarly, Americans are cold to a health-care system that effectively rewards individuals for waiting to get insurance until they get sick—subsidizing their coverage by taxing those who responsibly carry insurance in good times and bad.

Yawn. Another apology by the insurance mindset to get us all involved.


SO pissed that some can actually remain healthy outside the system.


Give me indigenous rights to opt out of whatever y'all decided upon, that's all I ask. Don't touch the herbs and other indigenous cures that have been with mankind since time-out-of-mind. No patenting of genetics from any of these, either!

Stay away from my body and I'll stay away from your system...don't give me any of this bullshit...I am NOT the problem if I choose to remain uninsured...I INSURE my own health.

Cheers!

[sturge]

The current proposals in Congress would effectively limit choice across the entire spectrum of health care: What kind of health insurance citizens can buy, what kind of doctors they can see, what kind of procedures their doctors will perform, what kind of drugs they can take, and what treatment options they may have.

The insurance companies are already limiting this.

[MCP-001]

Government Health Care keeps failing, because in principle it cannot work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

The politicos cannot accept that, especially when they're looking at creating a large class dependent upon you during every election.

That is the REAL reason the looters want health care reform.

[rb336]

in principal it doesn't work? BS - it works in virtually every country that has it, and better than ours. in principal the private system we have does not work and cannot be sustained

and sorry, but an op-ed piece by a right-wing stooge like arthur brooks in a right-wing rag that has become, essentially, a print version of faux news, is worth less than the bandwidth to carry it, especially since, according to virtually every poll, his entire premise is WRONG

oh, and the wash post editorial reads like nothing except for another regurgitation of insurance industry talking points

[MCP-001]

So aside from attacking the messenger, do you have any evidence to back up your assertions?

Or are you just going to use emotion to make your point?

[Jimaz]

From today's Detroit News: Health bill has 'public option'

Just weeks ago, the prospects for such an approach seemed remote, reflecting all-out opposition from conservatives to what they considered an excessive government role in the economy and a lack of enthusiasm from many moderate Democrats. But the idea has consistently drawn strong support in national polls and has the White House's backing though not its particularly active public support.

[rb336]

So aside from attacking the messenger, do you have any evidence to back up your assertions?

Or are you just going to use emotion to make your point?

no emotion, just virtually every poll has preference for a public option in the 63-70% range

[Danny]

Public option for socialist state run universal health care MUST pass right away. It will not hurt HMOs and PPOs. The government will help you with the costs and the doctor. Give it a chance.

[mrrichard]

The polls show that most people don't want a public option, or government controlled
"government-run insurance – also known as the “public option� "
most people don't even know what is in the bill
they dems won't make available what is in the so called bill
Pelosi wants to change the name of 'public optoion' to 'consumer option' because she thinks putting lipstick on a pig will make it smell better.

The gov't could not even manage a cash for clunker tax subsidy program, how can they manage over 6% of the economy, when Medacaid is trillions in debt, Medicare is trillion dollars in debt, Social Security is trillions in debt, pension funds and unfunded mandates have already broke the backs of the next two generations already.
This will destroy this country inside and out.
Oh, but the DC politicos care so much about us. What happens when the republicans take over and change it, will it be good then?
Fact is: there will be no public option because the democrats want to and will put private insurance companies out of business because they can't compete with unlimited government taxed money.
Everyone will be forced into government controlled expensive, bad rationed care after companies kick employees off insurance and insurance companies stop doing business or go out of business and doctors quit practice because it will not be worth the hassle working for incompetent bureaucrats who want to control their pay.

[MCP-001]

no emotion, just virtually every poll has preference for a public option in the 63-70% range

Depends on how the question is actually asked.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._public_option

Like mrrichard pointed out, no one know what in the health care bill. The Senate is still trying to work out five different versions.

Then once that is done, it still needs to be reconciled with the House version.

Plus, you have democrats[[?) getting heat for their position on what's being released.

http://thehill.com//blogs/blog-brief...-happy-with-me

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html

[rb336]

The polls show that most people don't want a public option, or government controlled
"government-run insurance – also known as the “public option� "
most people don't even know what is in the bill
they dems won't make available what is in the so called bill
Pelosi wants to change the name of 'public optoion' to 'consumer option' because she thinks putting lipstick on a pig will make it smell better.

The gov't could not even manage a cash for clunker tax subsidy program, how can they manage over 6% of the economy, when Medacaid is trillions in debt, Medicare is trillion dollars in debt, Social Security is trillions in debt, pension funds and unfunded mandates have already broke the backs of the next two generations already.
This will destroy this country inside and out.
Oh, but the DC politicos care so much about us. What happens when the republicans take over and change it, will it be good then?
Fact is: there will be no public option because the democrats want to and will put private insurance companies out of business because they can't compete with unlimited government taxed money.
Everyone will be forced into government controlled expensive, bad rationed care after companies kick employees off insurance and insurance companies stop doing business or go out of business and doctors quit practice because it will not be worth the hassle working for incompetent bureaucrats who want to control their pay.

there is absolutely not one factual statement that you can actually back with anything except blather from right-wing blogfloggers and their citation circle-jerk

[rb336]

Depends on how the question is actually asked.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._public_option

yes, look at how the question is asked -- when it is asked in a straight-forward fashion rather than the convoluted crap rasmussen puts out, the answer is clear -- more than 2/3 of the people want a public option

on the "thehill" link -- ALL house versions ban pay for abortion except in the case where it threatens the life of the mother. Read them

Lieberman has been nothing but a right-wing stooge for years. What kills me is that the GAO reports show MAJOR savings WITH the public option than WITHOUT it. With or without, the bills STILL SAVE MONEY overdoing what the wingnuts, lieberman and the insurance companies want -- nothing.

[MCP-001]

yes, look at how the question is asked -- when it is asked in a straight-forward fashion rather than the convoluted crap rasmussen puts out, the answer is clear -- more than 2/3 of the people want a public option

on the "thehill" link -- ALL house versions ban pay for abortion except in the case where it threatens the life of the mother. Read them

Lieberman has been nothing but a right-wing stooge for years. What kills me is that the GAO reports show MAJOR savings WITH the public option than WITHOUT it. With or without, the bills STILL SAVE MONEY overdoing what the wingnuts, lieberman and the insurance companies want -- nothing.

Take it for what you will, but Rasmussen typically pickes up on trends before the other polling firms do.

The final answer on the health care bills is hardly "clear" due to the fact that a final bill is no where near ready.

With the horse trading that's going on behind the scenes, politicians selling their souls to Pelosi & Reid [[i.e. Stabenow), and politicians going over the CBO scores to see what they can add to the final bill [[and ironically skew the CBO scores...and not in a good way), there are too many variables to make a final determination.

[ccbatson]

I don't get how people miss the obvious here...whaqt is wrong with the current system? Trace these problems back to their roots and what do you find? Organized labor disconnecting consumer from the services they seek, government over regulation, government intrusion into the process via Medicare/Caid/SCHIP...now, how to fix it? Reverse the above problems, NOT MORE OF THE PROBLEM.

[rb336]

Bats, your delusions are, as usual, getting the better of you. there is a direct correlation between the worsening of our health care situation and the decline of unions. your argument is even more pathetic than usual

[ccbatson]

Wrong line...try 1965 after Medicare and the TO BE EXPECTED decline in quality and escalation of costs in all things government/socialised.

[rb336]

There is absolutely NO data to support your comment, as usual

[ccbatson]

I will admit that this is an opinion and correlation not causality by scientific standards. Of course, yours is no better in that regard Rb.

[mjs]

http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

For crying out loud guys. My poll, your poll. This week, last week. To-may-toe, to-ma-toe. Here's about a dozen reputable polls on the topic with about a dozen questions each asked over several different time periods.

The country is split with no clear majority and it shifts around with the slightest rephrasing or new news story. Since the blitz play didn't work, proponents are going to have to either draft a 50 page compromise bill written in the english language or watch it go the way of the NOW legislation.

[ccbatson]

Hidden from the polls is an ability to take into account the negative impact of the proposed monstrous legislation. Once that leaks out, watch the rapid turn to the negative over the bill.

[mjs]

I was with you on this argument when Pelosi and the other top recipients of health care insurance wanted to rush HR3200 through before anyone could read it, let alone discuss it. Back then, I was shouting restraint the loudest. But, now, health care has been the number one news topic for three months and no one has been holding any punches on this one, including a supposedly unbiased media oligopoly.

[ccbatson]

1990 pages MJS...released Friday...debate and voting within a week.

[mjs]

Your link to the bill? As much as the number of this new bill so some of the rest of us can find the link and read the bill for you?

[rb336]

I will admit that this is an opinion and correlation not causality by scientific standards. Of course, yours is no better in that regard Rb.

there are no correlations to support what you say, however there IS plenty of evidence to support mine. go look it up