Public Opinion on Single-Payer, National Health Plans, and Expanding Access to Medicare Coverage

[ehrnst]

As Medicare-for-all becomes a staple in national conversations around health care and people become aware of the details of any plan or hear arguments on either side, it is unclear how attitudes towards such a proposal may shift. KFF polling finds public support for Medicare-for-all shifts significantly when people hear arguments about potential tax increases or delays in medical tests and treatment (Figure 9). KFF polling found that when such a plan is described in terms of the trade-offs (higher taxes but lower out-of-pocket costs), the public is almost equally split in their support (Figure 10). KFF polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan, suggesting another potential area for decreased support especially since most supporters (67 percent) of such a proposal think they would be able to keep their current health insurance coverage (Figure 11).

KFF polling finds more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the ACA in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the ACA with a national Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 12). Additionally, KFF polling has found broader public support for more incremental changes to expand the public health insurance program in this country including proposals that expand the role of public programs like Medicare and Medicaid (Figure 13). And while partisans are divided on a Medicare-for-all national health plan, there is robust support among Democrats, and even support among four in ten Republicans, for a government-run health plan, sometimes called a public option (Figure 14). Notably, the public does not perceive major differences in how a public option or a Medicare-for-all plan would impact taxes and personal health care costs. However, there are some differences in perceptions of how the proposals would impact those with private health insurance coverage (Figure 15). KFF polling in February 2020 finds about four in ten Americans support both a Medicare-for-all plan and a public option (Figure 16). So while the general idea of a national health plan (whether accomplished through an expansion of Medicare or some other way) may enjoy fairly broad support in the abstract, it remains unclear how this issue will play out in the 2020 election and beyond.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/

[PatrickforO]

1. Interesting how the wording of a poll can actually produce an opinion.

There's some big lobby money working feverishly to present it to us as if we'll LOSE something, or have to bear a giant tax increase.

I wonder how it would poll if the question were: Would you support paying more taxes and getting Medicare if the tax burden was less than or the same as what you pay in premiums now, and there was no deductible, copays or coinsurance?

And delays? Really? Because I just got diagnosed with skin cancer on my nose and the surgery was scheduled out to April 20. April 20, and it is February 20. So, WITH MY EMPLOYER-SUPPLIED health insurance, I'm looking at outplacement surgery two full months in the future. Sure, it's BCC, so it won't spread, but 2 months?

See, these for-profit lizards want to keep that money coming in and they don't give a rat's rear end about any of us. It's all profit over people.

I'm sick of it. I'm sick of being told why I can't have something everyone else in the industrial world has, and I'm doubly sick of having shitty, rationed healthcare with financially crippling copays. If Medicare for all gives me shitty, rationed healthcare, that's OK because I already have that. But I won't have the copays!

[ehrnst]

3. Are you saying that the Kaiser Family Foundation is a 'big money lobby"

or otherwise can't be trusted to do public polling in a way that doesn't push for or against a particular policy?

Because this really sounds like shooting the messenger for not pushing for MFA.

I myself prefer politically neutral sources doing the polling on an issue, myself. That's where looking at the methodology comes it.

Simply taking out one's disappointment at the results of a poll by casting suspicion on the entity doing polling doesn't help anyone, or any particular goal. It's simply a head-in-the-sand reaction.

There is no conspiracy behind a KFF poll. They are self-funded, non-partisan, and their data is considered the best in health policy analysis and public opinion polling. They use professionals who understand how to ask questions in a way that does not push an agenda.

You're welcome.

[PatrickforO]

6. Well, think about that for a minute - yes Kaiser has a Family Foundation.

Sure.

And this poll came from them.

Yep.

But the Kaiser Family Foundation is inextricably tied to the Kaiser Permanente HMO.

Consider this, ehrnst - we've all criticized the media for years for the way they report stuff, particularly the both-side-ism they have exhibited up until fairly recently.

The way Kaiser Foundation words the poll is the same thing. Both-side-ism. The people who made the poll questions are bending so far backwards to present it 'fairly' that somehow the MAJOR FACT - that you will pay higher taxes, but in return will have a much reduced premium, and NO copays, deductibles or 'coinsurance,' is mysteriously left out of the survey entirely.

My contention is not putting THAT in the question somewhere definitely tilts the answers toward what the health insurance lobby wants. Which is business as usual. They see 'fixing ACA' as being the lesser of evils for them.

So do I TRUST the impartiality of the Kaiser Family Foundation in creating and conducting this poll? Not really.

[ehrnst]

13. No, that's where your assumptions are not based in fact.

They are not in any way tied to Kaiser Permanente, other than they are named after the same person. I suppose you could make the same claim about Washington DC, being "inextricably tied" to the George Washington Bridge in NYC....

So that's the first error you made via assumptions because the poll didn't make you happy. This shows that you are pre-disposed to reject any data that doesn't confirm your opinions.

The way Kaiser Foundation words the poll is the same thing. Both-side-ism. The people who made the poll questions are bending so far backwards to present it 'fairly' that somehow the MAJOR FACT

"Bending over so far backwards to present it fairly" is a bad thing.... and is "both siderism" because it doesn't promote a particular piece of legislation, when it is surveying what people know about the terminology.

That you will pay higher taxes, but in return will have a much reduced premium, and NO copays, deductibles or 'coinsurance,' is mysteriously left out of the survey entirely.

It's also helpful to read the thing you are lecturing on before doing so, as it will reduce embarrassment when someone shows you what is in it.

[Newest Reality]

2. Just a note...

We might look to public opinion as an indicator of what the public really wants, but we could also be looking opinions formed by way of inaccurate, biased and agenda-based information that tells the public what they should think.

So, that's a bit circular and, IMH0, it is similar to Trump telling his base that he promises them things that he actually came up with to sway them in the first place and then says he will fulfill his promises. I promise you all that you will give me what I want!

It we overlook just how many front organizations and think tanks that are heavily funded to the gills in order to influence and mold public opinion for the sake of vested interests, then how useful is public opinion overall? We would have to assume that the general public receives a fair amount of reliable information concerning any issue that represents a threat to profits and industries that rely on maintaining a certain facade.

This is nothing new, but it tends to be overlooked and the information is available to corroborate and verify just how much is invested in shaping those opinions.

To sum up: we create a general, consensus public opinion that represents our intended goals and then use the polling as another means to make our ideas and information appear to be valid. Voila!

[ehrnst]

4. So you think this poll isn't accurate?

Or that any and all polling at all pushes a "circular" goal of a particular agenda?

[Newest Reality]

5. No, not necessarily...

Consider my interjection a matter of how people are informed, not any particular poll.

I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

[ehrnst]

10. So does that mean you don't trust polls at all?

Not clear on what your position is.

[Newest Reality]

12. I did't say that anything about trust.

I was as clear as I could be about that. It is not so much a position as informational.

If it challenged the poll that you presented, that was not the intent, though.

[ehrnst]

14. Then no, I don't understand what you are saying about polls in general or this poll.

[PatrickforO]

8. I don't think it inaccurate either. I just think that it was constructed in a seriously

flawed way - and yes, like the other interlocutor who replied, I'm talking about how these things are geared to shape public opinion, not actually gauge it objectively in any real sense.

[ehrnst]

9. So you think that because it that the questions did not lead, the poll was flawed?

Why would the Kaiser Family Foundation have an agenda against neutral polling?

What credentials do you have in statistics, analysis and polling that leads you to conclude that they are flawed, and you are not simply disappointed in the results?

There are metrics for developing polling questions that are not leading to a conclusion, in fact there are advanced degrees in polling and statistical analysis.

[PatrickforO]

11. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree questioning my credentials.

I'm a national and regional award winning economist who specializes in applied research.

In other words, I know my stuff.

And I'm telling you, the people at the Kaiser Foundation, I'm quite sure, are completely convinced of their total objectivity. But failure to phrase the question including all the facts produces a skewed result. Period.

[ehrnst]

15. But you didn't even know that Kaiser Family Foundation wasn't tied to

Kaiser Permanente?



KFF is a preeminent source of independent, non-partisan analysis and polling on health policy. They know their stuff, and have an entire very expert team that conducts their polling. Not sure how that got past you.

You also didn't bother to even read the poll before claiming, erroneously, that certain things were "mysteriously left out," when those things as I demonstrated by showing you slide #9, were indeed not. And you are doubling down on that....

I'm sure that you're convinced of your total objectivity of your dismissal of a poll by a leading non-partisan, self-funded org that happens to present polling data that doesn't support your bias. I think those collected credentials have a bit more weight than someone that doesn't even bother to do research on them before falsely claiming that they were "tied to Kaiser Permanente."

From their website:

Can I get answers to questions about Kaiser Permanente?
KFF is not associated with Kaiser Permanente. You can find information about Kaiser Permanente online.

https://www.kff.org/contact-us/

I know that the results of the poll are upsetting, but trying to discredit KFF in order to deal with it doesn't lend credibility to one's own analysis of the poll.

[ehrnst]

16. The basis for your claim was that KFF was "tied" to Kaiser Permanente is what was flawed.

I'm talking about how these things are geared to shape public opinion, not actually gauge it objectively in any real sense.

You have provided no evidence that KFF was 'gearing" the poll to "shape public opinon, not actually gauge it objectively in any real sense," other than a false claim about KFF being tied to Kaiser Permanente, and your "expertise" that didn't extend to reading slide number nine before saying that the questions in it were "mysteriously left out."

I will believe a team of people who have earned their reputation for objectivity over one person who didn't bother to do basic research before firing off an angry response because of the results, no matter what expertise they claim to have.

[Cha]

7. KR