In a recent poll, car drivers indicated that if private roads were replaced by public roads, they would still support transportation overall, as long as they could keep the same roads they've always used.

When asked to explain their position, drivers claimed that public roads create free riders, who think they own the roads, and don't realize that others already own them, bought and paid for just like Medicare.

Dean,

First I read the WaPo headline, then the article and then the actual poll results on PollingReport.com.

I thought: "Please, I hope Dean Baker will jump all over this sometime today."

Then, I read your entry and was so pleased to see that you had already eviscerated the WaPo for this piece of blatant bias.

Although I am a big fan of the American Prospect, is there any chance that you can obtain a wider circulation for your critiques? Your voice should be disseminated on a scale equivalent to the voice of Paul Krugman.

I woke up this morning to NPR sound-biting the Sunday talk shows - some conservative Dem senators and a couple of Republicans - all either saying that the public option isn't necessary or that it's dead. So the networks select the most conservative voices around on Sunday and NPR replays them on Monday, and that's the national consensus.

Doesn't this indicate that altering some other aspect of whatever-plan is the best way to increase overall support for reform?

It's amazing how much confusion a few HC billionaires can create.

This started out as health care reform, but has been hijacked by the corporate interests. Legislation in the Senate will give the insurance and pharmacutical industries an ever-increasing percentage of our nation's GDP, via a mandate to purchase their products at prices they control. Without the public option, this legislation is worthless, and should be defeated.

The Post should ask people whether they like the Republicans' idea of spending MORE taxpayers' money to cover poor individuals under private insurance than under the public insurance choice. That should improve the Post numbers on the "public option" back up to the 70-80% approval that all the other polls show.

DEMAND SINGLE PAYER, call Pelosi @1-202-225-0100.

@Linda,

It does seem it would be difficult to figure out what kind of reform the public opposes if the correct questions weren't asked. I couldn't find the methodology of the poll. Does anyone know where/if they released it?

Btw, the headline was laughable, "Reform Opposition High but Easing". They assume people aren't reading. Buried several paragraphs into the article were the actual numbers showing support for reform by a clear plurality or majority in every instance except when the question was posed using the nebulous term "initiatives", which was only opposed 46-48%.

Yep, the bill should die if it doesn't include a public option. Otherwise you'll have a bill that functions as an odious subsidy with no cost-control mechanisms. What would be truly heinous is if they mandated that people had to buy worthless insurance because no one should be forced to subsidize private interests without justification.

Re: Dean's
The Post could have also opted to highlight another poll finding: 55 percent of those polled support the public option. By comparison, only 46 percent of those polled supported the package as a whole. A real newspaper might have headlined this article: "public continues to have highly favorable view of public option," but this is the Washington Post.

LOL! So Dean would have considered it perfectly appropriate and neutral for WaPo have a headline stating a "highly favorable view" based on a 55% favorable figure, AND to ignore the fact that support for the overall package increased when the question removed the public option. Thanks, Dean, for making so clear what you consider neutral reporting! I repeat, LOL! Truly funny.

I meant to begin and end the bolding with "55%"

I should add that, in this case and in most, polls are only useful for political calculus, not as a sensible guide for policy. Many/most among the public has little grasp and/or major misconceptions of the issue and policy alternatives, so it would be a mistake to assume that poll results reflect what policies a well-informed, highly rational public would actually prefer based on the results they would prefer. And that applies in spades with a complex issue such as this one. That's why a society is better off not subjecting all major policy choices to referenda, even despite the major flaws in our political leadership.

Brooks, although they say that support for reform increased after the public option was dropped, they only asked the people OPPOSED to the public option. They didn't ask the people who SUPPORT the public option if they would change their minds--they just assumed that the entire 55% who support the public option would support a bill without that option. If you ask me, that's a pretty big assumption.

Julie,

First, you seem to be misreading the poll.

48% answered "oppose" to Question 16:
16. Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

And 42% (6 points fewer, as the article points out) answered "oppose" to Question 23, which was asked of ALL (not just those who answered "oppose" to either #16 or #22*):

23. Say health care reform does NOT include the option of a government-sponsored health plan - in that case would you support or oppose the rest of the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?

So 48% oppose the package with the public option, 42% oppose without the public option. And support increases from 46% to 50%. Not the direction we'd guess based on 55% saying they support a public option (responding to Question 22*), but margin of error may be a factor, along with the fact that people are often inconsistent and irrational and influenced by wording of questions or subjective/misperceptions of questions, and/or that favoring one element in isolation doesn't necessarily mean that including that element in an overall package makes that package more attractive.

But here's the larger point: Dean said, based on 55% saying they support the public option:

A real newspaper might have headlined this article: "public continues to have highly favorable view of public option"

Do you think that 55% support should be described as a "highly favorable view"? If not (and I have to assume a reasonable person would say "not"), isn't Dean way off to suggest that the headline that he says a "real" (presumably neutrally-reporting) newspaper would have published would have been accurate, neutral reporting? (It's ok to say Dean is wrong and is actually indicating a preference for distortion and gross spin over accurate reporting, even if you happen to like his views)

* Question 22: Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

At what point do we consider for-profit health insurance to be an inherently fraudulent business model that profits by denying treatment and cancelling policies? Maybe about the same time we decide to hold fossil fuel purveyors responsible for the greatest negative externality of all time, CO2?

izzatzo: I like that name--sounds Italian. Mark my words, there WILL be death panels telling us on what roads we can and can't drive. Kidding, but isn't that the same as the nonsense being spouted by the "astroturf.orgs?" Given the constant loud din of their lies, although I'd have to agree with Brooks (in this rare instance) that the poll is not HIGHLY favorable, I am surprised (and pleased) that is as favorable as it is, given all the widespread lies. I think the progressives did not anticipate the depth to which the special interests would stoop. But they seem to have their bearings now, and support for the public option will continue to grow--just wait until the bills go to conference.

On a related note, a sizable majority of doctors and AMA doctors (AMA opposed to public option) support the public option: http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/48408physician.pdf

The Post, like the rest of the elite-controlled mass media, wants to grind honest, working people into the ground. This is nothing less than a shameless, guttural money grab. How these people can look at themselves in the mirror is beyond me. People, can we heave just a little noblesse oblige?

The Post, like the rest of the elite-controlled mass media, wants to grind honest, working people into the ground. This is nothing less than a shameless, guttural money grab.

"Some guy in a cube" has it all figured out! And here's the tape of the WaPo reporters and their editor right after publishing this article http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7edeOEuXdMU

Brooks, A real newspaper might have headlined this article: "public continues to have highly favorable view of public option," OR "public continues to have favorable view of public option," but this is The Washington Post.

Now it comes that according to the New England Journal of Medicine, almost 70% of doctors support a public option.

In previous news, the Republicans intend to cost the taxpayers more money to cover the poor, without a public option.

There is NO political, ethical, moral, or economic downside to pushing a public option by whatever Congressional mechanism necessary.

I support having the government create a public insurance plan to compete with private insurance plans, yet oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

Just a proof of existence.

The main problem with the survey seems to be "given what you know about them" in question 16. The question would be more accurate for the purpose it is being used for by the Post if it described what is known about the reforms explicitly.

Of course, if it did, I would support the poll's author in his/her bid for Congress. It seems like the only thing that's clear about this plan is the stupid mandate, i.e. "one of the reasons I voted for Obama and not Clinton."

Government shouldn't be institutionalizing private business without offering a public option. It's wrong with auto insurance and wronger with health insurance. Mandates only work well if they are a red back door to socialism.

Jamaal,

So is your suggestion to have a public option that gets all the people with pre-existing conditions that are rejected by the private insurers?

If you say, no, that private insurers should be prohibited from such screening -- or limitation of coverage for pre-existing conditions or higher premiums due to them -- then we need a mandate that everyone get health insurance; otherwise people generally would forgo insurance until they expect their medical bills to exceed the premium cost, and the insurance business model blows up.

Many/most among the public has little grasp and/or major misconceptions of the issue and policy alternatives, so it would be a mistake to assume that poll results reflect what policies a well-informed, highly rational public would actually prefer based on the results they would prefer.

This sounds like something that a Fox on 15th Street "reporter" would say, maybe Joe Klein. Your disdain for democracy is pretty clear. Brooks wants rule by aristocracy (specifically in the U.S. case, corporations).

Keep in mind that Brooks's definition of well-informed and highly rational is based on one criterion: Brooks's fiat.

PMA,

As usual, you are just throwing out childish ad hominem. To charge, based on what I've said above, that I have a "disdain for democracy" is just so silly it should embarrass you.

Insurance companies are bleeding to death. SINGLE PAYER in place will provide the safety net for when they finally die.

PMA,
do you believe that the U.S. public is "well-informed" and "highly rational"? Seriously? If so, are you including those with opposing views to your own?

"well-informed and highly rational"

When people like Brooks use such phrases, what they really mean is "the electorate is too stupid to vote on important issues like health care. Therefore, we need a ruling class to make their decisions for them."

This is a view that's both as old as the hills and directly inimical to democracy. What never ceases to surprise me is how baldfaced the slugs are when they espouse it.

(I know I shouldn't bother, but...)

Zboz,

"people like Brooks"? What kind of person are you saying I am? And based on what?

As for your remark, it's silly, just as it was when PMA said the same thing.

No, our leaders should not decide everything according to polls, for the reason I gave. People may have a fairly good sense of what results (and trade-offs) they prefer, but obviously a great many people are considerably off in their assessment of which policies will or are likely to produce which results. That's why we have representatives, who are supposed to take the time (time most citizens don't have) to study issues in greater depth and decide based (generally, with some exceptions*) on what they believe their constituencies (and the nation, if applicable) would want in terms of likely results.

Do you think our leaders should make all their policy decisions based on nothing but polls? If not, well, how dare they?! (per your logic)

* Sometimes they are justified in deciding contrary to even the well-informed, rational majority preference, because sometimes they should protect minority interests, particularly when based on principles of fairness and/or Constitutional rights.

Brooks,

I'm saying you're an elitist.

This is based on what you wrote before, which I quoted, and further supported by the subsequent posting.

For instance - how generous of you to note that "People may have a fairly good sense of what results (and trade-offs) they prefer." If only average podunk folks around the country could hear such commendation from someone of your stature (whatever that is) - they would melt with gratitude.

I neither stated nor implied that politicians should make policy decisions based only on polls. It's bad faith of you to suggest that I did.

You're right in your description of how representation should work - unfortunately, this isn't how American politics works.

I was pointing out that the rhetoric you employed is often employed by the elite to justify their enrichment at the expense of the less well-off.

I agree as well with your starred caveat, except that this is, of course, not reality.

If we were to be accurate, we would have to write instead:

Sometimes they are justified in deciding contrary to even the well-informed, rational majority preference, because sometimes they should protect minority interests, particularly those of CORPORATE POWER.

Whoops, that last comment was me.

Zboz,

You write:
I'm saying you're an elitist. This is based on what you wrote before, which I quoted, and further supported by the subsequent posting.

And then later write:
I was pointing out that the rhetoric you employed is often employed by the elite to justify their enrichment at the expense of the less well-off.

Hmm, seems like you have trouble distinguishing between a necessary (or associated) condition vs. a sufficient condition. If I make a point that happens to be a point that is also made by some type of person, you conclude that I must be that type of person, apparently either oblivious to the possibility that someone other than that type of person could make the same point, or oblivious to the logic that flows from that premise.

Error of basic logic, by way of syllogism:
Premise #1: All dogs have four legs.
Premise #2: Buddy has four legs.
Invalid (illogical) Conclusion: Buddy is a dog.

Unless, that is, you reject the premise that anyone other than an "elitist" with the agenda you describe could possibly make the point I made, but that would not only be an absurd assumption, but would also seem to contradict the rest of your comment.

Re: I neither stated nor implied that politicians should make policy decisions based only on polls. It's bad faith of you to suggest that I did.

Don't be confused about what "bad faith" is (I'm one of few folks here who make a genuine effort to consistently respond directly to others' actual arguments rather than straw men). The reason I implied that your argument would lead one to advocate policy-by-poll is because, if one assumes that the public (say, all or nearly all of the population) is very well-informed, very rational, and thus very capable of accurately assessing the trade-offs and likely results of alternative policies (despite their complexity and the time required to study and discuss them), and you assume (as I do) that people are fairly good at choosing what results they prefer, then, assuming well-constructed polls, why wouldn't you want policies set based on majority (or perhaps plurality) preferences reflected in polls (in general, with the exception of cases of minority rights, Constitutional or otherwise)? If the people know what results they prefer and they know well which policies are most likely to produce those results, why wouldn't it be best for our representatives to decide accordingly?

Brooks,

I think I see your point - you're not an elitist, merely an apologist for elitism.

Duly noted.

Zboz,

Nice try (well, not really). Why would I be an apologist for elitism if I'm not an elitist, and on what basis do you call me an apologist for elitism? Just because I made a point that happens to be also a point made by (supposed) "elites" with views that may have nothing to do with my own? Again, you are making the most basic logical error in the book. Doubling down on it doesn't make it any less invalid.

Do you have any valid argument, or do you think empty, unwitty one-liners suffice?

And are you going to answer the question I was kind enough to bold to make sure you wouldn't miss it?

As far as I'm concerned, the sentiments and ideas you expressed (which have been noted here and are in abundance elsewhere) are more than sufficient to qualify you as both an elitist and an elitist apologist of the highest order.

For you, that ought to be taken as praise, but I know how thin your skin is (and how easily confused you get), so I know how quickly you'll get right back to work on your next screed of a post.

Good comment on the Post story. It's worth looking at those poll results in the context of years of polling data, some of it available at pollingreport.com.

A large majority of people say they want something like single-payer health care. This should be an option.

Zboz,

ok, thanks for making it clear that repetition of a substance-free name-calling (as opposed to substantive argument) is the best you can do.

Oh, and thanks, too, for making it clear that you're unwilling to answer reasonable questions about assertions you've made.

My questions still stand. If you somehow suddenly develop the fortitude, integrity, or just plain decency to respond to my questions (which, after all, merely ask for some sensible basis for your pejorative labeling of me), I'll be pleasantly surprised.

"Just passing by",

Re: A large majority of people say they want something like single-payer health care.

What is your source? Have a link?

Brooks,

It may be name-calling, but it isn't substance free.

As for your "questions" - I see no need to respond to what are either equivocations, evasions, or obfuscations. To call them questions is laughable.

If you have any real, good-faith questions, please post them, I'd be happy to answer them.

Zboz,

Re:If you have any real, good-faith questions, please post them, I'd be happy to answer them.

ok, let's see how that will work out if I ask them again. Here are my questions, all very reasonable, clear and relevant to your assertions:

You said I was "an apologist for elitism".

1) Why would I be an apologist for elitism if I'm not an elitist?

2) On what basis do you call me an apologist for elitism? Just because I made a point that happens to be also a point made by (supposed) "elites" with views that may have nothing to do with my own? Isn't that reflective of the error I illustrated in that syllogism?

You wrote:

I neither stated nor implied that politicians should make policy decisions based only on polls.

3) If you assumes that the public (say, all or nearly all of the population) is very well-informed, very rational, and thus very capable of accurately assessing the trade-offs and likely results of alternative policies (despite their complexity and the time required to study and discuss them), and you assume (as I do) that people are fairly good at choosing what results they prefer, then, assuming well-constructed polls, why wouldn't you want policies set based on majority (or perhaps plurality) preferences reflected in polls (in general, with the exception of cases of minority rights, Constitutional or otherwise)? If the people know what results they prefer and they know well which policies are most likely to produce those results, why wouldn't it be best for our representatives to decide accordingly?

Anonymous was me

Madison's intention, which has been well studied, was to frame a government that "the more capable men" would, "protect the minority of the opulent against the minority". This is the reason for more power being vested in the Senate. As Norm Chomsky put it in a recent essay; "where the wealth of the nation would be dominant and protected from the general population". So, this arguement about elitism seems to have an element of folly involved. To begin with, we have a system that cleary favors the elite and always has, even before lobbyists were the norm. So for someone who is working-class through and through, recognizing that most people have neither the time nor the educational backround to understand an issue as complicated as this health-care quagmire is, is not elitist but simply realistic. From what I have read on these blogs and heard on the TV news I doubt that more than a small fraction of citizens can understand the basic arguement and if those who understand all of the ramififations were counted, the number would be only a fraction of a fraction. So a more interesting topic might be, as Brooks suggested, just how functional might a true democracy be, we now have the technology?

Our system was developed by the founding fathers to guard against the passions of the public, which they felt could be too easily swayed by demagogues and misinformation. They also felt that the general public didn't have the interest nor the time to properly assess public policy issues. Obviously, public opinion has its place given that we operate under a representative democracy. Brooks, if you don't take much stock in the opinion of the genral public what about the opinions of the doctors as reported in the study in the New England Journal of Medicine?

Brooks,

In response to your questions:

1) I have no idea. My guess would be you're a bit confused.

2) See above.

3) This isn't a distortion so much as a fabrication. I therefore see no reason to answer it.

Legislation by polling, either way, is irrelevant, as I said before - you seem determined to drag it into the discussion.

Again, me.

Zboz,

Your evasiveness here -- your persistent unwillingness to substantively address my legitimate challenges to your assertions (including your pejorative labeling of me) -- is laughably pathetic.

It's clear that you simply have no defense of what you've said, and not only do you lack the integrity and decency to admit it, but you feel compelled (I guess out of insecurity) to persist with some pretense of a justification for your evasiveness, in hopes of saving face. ok, extremely insecure, dishonest folks like you are a dime a dozen in the blogosphere.

ray,

I appreciate your invocation of Chomsky but I'm sorry to see you missed his point.

It is "folly" to consider this issue as something so complex and rarefied that average people can have no informed opinion. The basics of the health care debate are simple enough to understand, as the majority of people in this country do. The "quagmire" is a result of the right-wing media/corporate combine, which is interested in maintaining huge profit margins and has Congress in their pocket.

Brooks,

Do you refute any of my answers? If so, on what ground?

Zboz,

As you know, you didn't give any actual answers. Man, for you to persist this much (rather than either addressing my questions substantively or conceding that you really can't back up what you said) really shows a lot of insecurity and lack of integrity. Keep goin'. Not that it's that uncommon in the blogosphere, but I have a feeling you'll keep going with this pathetic display of smallness if I keep requesting that you respond substantively. Maybe you could go for the record for demonstrating insecurity in the blogosphere.

So you don't refute them?

Am I to assume that you are, indeed, confused?

If not, please say so, and explain why.

Zboz,
Answer the questions.

Brooks,

No, YOU answer the questions.

Zboz,

I only quoted one line of Chomsky's and there is nothing difficult to understand in regards to that line, so how I "missed his point" does not make sense.

And I did not say nor suggest that "average people can have no opinion". I said they had neither the time nor the educational backround to UNDERSTAND. As I can assume by your methods here that you probably also fit into this category.

Thank you very much. I am wonderring if I can share your article in the bookmarks of society,Then more friends can talk about this problem.

ray,

You'll have to forgive me for assuming that you read the entire essay and didn't merely pull a quote from it. The "point" I'm referring to has to do with the entirety of the essay, which you should read if you haven't.

Also, by quoting me, you've conveniently omitted the word "informed" from before opinion. The exception I take to your characterization of the body politic stands. They (we) understand well enough, and would understand better if infotaintment and right-wing media would desist from muddying the waters.

And don't be fooled by my little fracas with Brooks - I'm winding him up to see him squirm. I'll admit it's probably hopeless, but I was trying to give him a taste of his own obnoxious medicine.

This is a great piece. Very thought provoking. I like the sort of ending that leaves it opn to personal input. Makes it work for just about everyone I think. Nicely done! I’ll subscribe.

Ray wrote,

PMA,
do you believe that the U.S. public is "well-informed" and "highly rational"? Seriously? If so, are you including those with opposing views to your own?

Ray, this is a phenomenal question and thank you for responding directly to the substance of my comment.

I believe that people, when they have a free choice, generally arrive at conclusions that are in the interests of themselves and others. Under a democratic framework that respects free speech (in my opinion, money does not equal speech) I would certainly find this to be the case. No system is perfect, but I prefer the democratic one and I prefer policy that improves upon the system instead of destroying it, which is the result our republican and mainstream conservative friends desire.

As you know, you didn't give any actual answers. Man, for you to persist this much (rather than either addressing my questions substantively or conceding that you really can't back up what you said) really shows a lot of insecurity and lack of integrity. Keep goin'.

As a textbook example of Freudian projection this wins the Montgomery Burns outstanding award for achievement in the field of excellence.

PMA,

I realize most likely you are still hurting from the times I presented legitimate challenges to your arguments and you either ran away immediately or responded with nothing but ad hominem and/or evasiveness and then ran away, but seriously, get over it. It's sad to see you still seeking catharsis by spewing nothing but ad hominem toward me on thread after thread. (Not even including the most recent cases of this, here's the history, for anyone interested, not that I presume anyone is: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=08&year=2009&base_name=reuters_editorializes_on_the_b#comment-6287253 )

When you see me say something with which you disagree, say why. Present some actual argument that refutes or challenges my argument or make some substantive inquiry. Amazing concept. Try it sometime. Good luck with accomplishing this task, and with your emotional recovery generally.

Zboz,
sorry for omitting a word when quoting you above, I stand corrected.

I did however read the entire Chomsky piece and I suspect that you must think my quote came from some other source than what it did because your assertion makes no sense in the context presented.

PMA,

once "themselves and others" are removed from the equation who is left remaining?

Zboz,

Re: I was trying to give him a taste of his own obnoxious medicine.

hmm, let's see:
1. You made an assertion, which happened to include a characterization of me.

2. I challenged the validity of your assertion by asking you legitimate, clear questions.

3. You become pathetically evasive, then post obvious non-answers, then keep asking me to refute arguments that you didn't give.

4. You idiotically and/or dishonestly equate my request that you answer my legitimate questions regarding your assertion with your absurd demand that I refute arguments you didn't make, calling it a taste of my own medicine.

So what can we learn from your responses to me on this thread?
1) You said something you cannot defend.
2) You are too insecure to admit it, or even to cease with the pretense that you could defend it and that your evasiveness is justified.

My questions are still there upthread. I assume you won't actually answer them (You know if you engaged substantively and honestly, you'd end up having to concede that you were clueless), but I'd be glad to be pleasantly surprised.

Brooks, I can see your propensity for being a pedantic *ssh*le remains firmly entrenched. Claim the victim and whine like a schoolgirl though when people call you out for being a jerk, that's very "manly" of you! LOL!

What a pathetic loser, don't you have a teabagging session to get to?

Folks should definitely check out pollingreport.com, and look at poll questions *before* all the uproar about health care reform this year, in addition to the results since the so-called "debate" started.

The picture you get, if you choose to look and think rationally and reasonably about the survey results is that Americans overwhelmingly favor a single-payer option, something like medicare for all.

The questions are asked in a myriad of ways, and obviously different questions prompt different answers - but the variation in answers indicates strong support for a canadian-like system.

Another good source for understanding American public opinion, in general, which will help understand how and why people answer they way they do when it comes to health policy is the work of Benjamin Page.

It is clear most Americans favor a public, single-payer system. It is very, very likely, that if a single payer system was calmly explained to most people in the country - the support would go up even more.

"Just passing along",

Can you be a little more specific than to just say that if you look at the polls on some website and consider "the myriad of ways" questions are asked, it's (supposedly) clear that most Americans favor a public, single payer system? What survey(s) and figures are you looking at? Link please.

Here's fun example of a poll result illustrating an interesting aspect of american public opinion:

"Would you support or oppose a universal health insurance program if it limited your own choice of doctors?"

Support 57%; Oppose 41%; Unsure 2%;

That result and many others are available at polling report.

Many people wouldn't predict this result - because Americans are supposed to love choice. Imagine the support people would give if they were confident that, as in Canada, your choice of doctor is greatly expanded. Obviously there is so much less red tape there, and everyone has coverage.

Now check out this one:

"Would you support or oppose a universal health insurance program if it meant there were waiting lists for some non-emergency treatments?"
Support 62% Oppose %33 Unsure 5%

These results exemplify may more, and a pattern about American's real feelings about health care emerges.

Here's another that's interesting:

"Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?"
Yes 64%; No 35%; Unsure 2%

Make sure that you remember there's no "smoking gun" poll that tells you the truth about American Public Opinion. If you do the research, or read, say for example, the research done by B. Page (referenced above), a pattern emerges about public opinion.

Americans are sort of pragmatic conservatives, and in this case they favor a single-payer system.

More great poll results:

"Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn't this the responsibility of the federal government?"
Should Guarantee 62%; Not Their Responsibility 31%; Unsure 7.

Another one:

"Which would you prefer: the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance, OR, a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?" Options rotated

Current System 33%; Universal Program 62%; Unsure 6%

Another:

"Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?" Options rotated

Coverage For All 79%; Holding
Down Taxes 17%; Unsure 4%

There's just an overwhelming amount. And on top of that, if you look at how people's answers change over time, and in response to wording changes, the pattern that emerges is strong support for a medicare like system/ single-payer system or whatever you want to call it.

All the poll results I quoted above in the last two posts are from pollingreport.com - a useful resource for anyone interested in the way Washington Post and others consistently misrepresent american public opinion.

Passing Along,

Thanks, but please provide links so I can see (1) who conducted and funded the polls (e.g., an advocacy group vs. a neutral polling entity), and (2)if there are other questions in the same polls that yield either consistent or contradictory results.

I spent a few minutes searching around (starting on Pollingreport per your reference and searching on "single payer") and found the following, where the question was asked very directly. I can't include more than two links at a time, so I'll continue in next comment:

AP-GfK Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. MoE ± 3.1. http://www.pollingreport.com/health2.htm
"Having a national health plan – or single-payer plan – in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan"
8/4-11/09
Favor 48%
Oppose 49%

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. MoE ± 3 http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm
"Creates a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all, in which the government would provide health care insurance to all Americans."
7/27-28/09
Favor 49%
Oppose 46%

[continued]

Rasmusen
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/32_favor_single_payer_health_care_57_oppose
Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.

Kaiser Family Foundation
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7943.pdf
"g. Having a national health plan – or single-payer plan – in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan
07/09
Favor 50%
Oppose 44%

The above figures (in this comment and my prior comment) seem to contradict your assertion. Agree? Do you have links to polls that show much higher support when people are asked directly and specifically?

There are some polls, also available on polling report, that definitely *provide evidence* that Americans don't want a single payer system. Some of those results are cited above (e.g. the Kaiser result). They don't *seem* to contradict, they actually do contradict. However . . .

No one survey question provides a smoking gun, for the truth of Am. Pub. Op. Therefore no one result - really affirms or contradicts, in any meaningful sense, a hypothesis about Am. Pub. Op. So you need to check the results over time, and see how they vary with question wording (among other things).

Most of the results I cited above are joint news agency & research firm endeavors. There are so many results that it is pointless to list of link to a few.

They are all available to check on line, along with many others. Remember that none of the survey results, individually, that support the claim that americans want a single-payer system are definitive, they are not smoking guns. Thus the results provided simply give an indication of what's out.

The assertion that americans want a single payer option is not one made idly. It comes for looking at lots of poll results, and reading what opinion researchers, like Page, have to say about it.

It's obviously impossible to go much further in this forum. This place is not suitable for an extensively footnoted, peer reviewed article on any topic. The forum is best suited to providing opinions, and claims which other people can evaluate on their own.

Lack of links or their presence is meaningless. And requests to provide them are as easy as they are pointless.

Check out the table of contents page on polling report:

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

Scroll down for "Health Policy" you'll find 6 pages reporting results going back some years.

Most of polls are joint news media & research firm.

Also, a good researcher on the topic in general is Ben Page. A 2009 book, that deals with Am. Pub. Op. on economic matters can be bought from Amazon, I presume. And if it makes you happy, it is an academic press:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=399117

There's so much to say about this. The footnotes in Page's recent book are good.

It's a great topic, and very surprising.

Passing Along,

Re: The forum is best suited to providing opinions, and claims which other people can evaluate on their own. Lack of links or their presence is meaningless. And requests to provide them are as easy as they are pointless.

lol, that reminds me of what a college friend used to say, although in his case mostly self-deprecatingly: "I don't need facts; I have opinions."

Sorry, but if you are going to insist repeatedly that there is clear polling evidence that Americans strongly support single payer, and if I show you the polls I found that ask the question most directly and they contradict your assertion, yeah, you really should provide some substantiation for your claim that might offset the weight of what I've presented.

I'll tell ya' what's "easy". Just sayin' stuff (stuff that you want to believe and you want others to believe), particularly making a claim about what polls show, without offering substantiation, or persisting with the claim in the face of evidence to the contrary and still not offering substantiation that could reasonably be seen as a counter-weight.

Passing Along,

I did more of your homework for you at Pollingreport.

Here ya' go:

http://www.pollingreport.com/health4.htm

NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey.
"Which of the following approaches for providing health care in the United States would you prefer: replacing the current health care system with a new government run health care system, or maintaining the current system based mostly on private health insurance?" MoE ± 5
Replace 41%
Maintain 48%
11/11-14/07

[My note re: the above: The question even helps single payer by contrasting it with "maintaining the current system" rather than some other type of "reform" including some middle way]

[2007] CBS News Poll. MoE ± 4
"Which do you think would be better for the country: having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, or keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance?"
One Program For All 55%
Current System 29%
Combination 3%
9/14-16/07

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. 2007. MoE ± "Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?"
Yes 64%
No 35%

[note that this question, which you've cited already, may be misinterpreted by some respondents who may think "providing" means "offering", since the single payer nature of it is not described as clearly as in the initial set of polls I posted upthread]

[Also note 2007 polls vs. 2009]

Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.
classic ugg boots