New Monmouth poll shows primary voters confused about public option vs Medicare For All

[highplainsdem]

I've seen this in some other polls, but this one really highlights it.

Democratic voters GREATLY prefer the public option to Medicare For All when the differences are spelled out at all in the question.

But when the question is only about MFA, apparently most voters like that because they assume it means "Medicare for all who want it," or the public option.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_US_082619/

16. How important is it to you that the Democrats nominate someone who supports Medicare for All – very important, somewhat important, not important, or are you not sure?
Aug. 2019
Very important 58%
Somewhat important 23%
Not important 10%
Not sure 9%
(n) (298)



17. Which of the following comes closest to how you would like to see health care handled: A. get rid of all private insurance coverage in favor of having everyone on a single public plan like Medicare for All, B. allow people to either opt into Medicare or keep their private coverage, C. keep health insurance private for people under age 65 but regulate the costs, or D. keep the health insurance system basically as it is?
Aug. 2019
A. Get rid of all private insurance coverage in favor of … Medicare for All 22%
B. Allow people to either opt into Medicare or keep their private coverage 53%
C. Keep health insurance private for people under age 65 but regulate the costs 7%
D. Keep the health insurance system basically as it is 11%
(VOL) Other 2%
(VOL) Don’t know 4%
(n) (298)



17A. [If “B. ALLOW PEOPLE TO OPT INTO MEDICARE OR KEEP THEIR PRIVATE COVERAGE” in Q17, ASK:] Would you eventually like to see the nation’s health care coverage move to a universal public system like Medicare for All or do you think there should always be a choice to keep your private coverage? [Percentages are based on the total sample of Democrats.]
Aug. 2019
Medicare for All now (from Q17) 22%
Public option: Eventually move to a universal public system like Medicare for All 18%
Public option: Should always be a choice to keep your private coverage 33%
Public option: Don’t know what should eventually happen 2%
Minor, none, other changes to health insurance (from Q17) 21%
(VOL) Don’t know (from Q17) 4%
(n) (298)

What this means is that Warren and Sanders are benefiting greatly from voter confusion.

Only 22% of Democratic primary voters actually favor Medicare For All.

53% favor a public option.


This is a point the Biden campaign needs to make more clearly.

[question everything]

1. Of course they are. As are the candidates

Warren has yet to release her health care plan and Harris is vacilating.

[Meadowoak]

2. Single payer

[elleng]

3. It bothers me that so much appears to be riding on our and candidates' perceived proposals

for healthcare; it's too damned complex an issue to put on any ballot, I don't like it when discussed at debates, '30 seconds please.'

CAN'T be done this way; sorry folks.

[Lulu KC]

8. So agree with you--

especially as I sit at the edge of Medicare myself and it is finally starting to make sense to me! Even with the supplemental costs, it's a great deal and I wish it could stay at least this inexpensive BUT provided to all as a lifetime plan. I do not see that option.

[Lulu KC]

11. PLUS, it all depends on post-election

Senate and House composition. It isn't like the POTUS walks in with what he or she wants and then signs it into law without full buy-in from Congress. Argh.

Why don't the candidates call and ask for my advice? (I'm laughing at my own joke. Bad taste!)

[elleng]

13. EXACTLY, the process BEGINS with a new POTUS.

HOW long did it take Obama finally to sign ACA?

[Lulu KC]

16. 1/20/09-3/23/10

14 months. Gutted from what he came in with, and precarious ever since. That he was able to get the basketball that close to the basket confirms his heroic ability.
I miss that guy.

[Hortensis]

32. Agree this is problematic. But the process begins with congress.

Congress legislates, of course. And the plus side of that is that we have a lot of people there who do know a great deal about this and that they began long ago.

As for the confusion the corporate-media organized debates are creating, furthered by the content of their shows, I think it'd be foolish not to believe it's deliberate. When people get confused, they turn off. When people get disenchanted, they don't vote.

And remember, MSNBC and CNN, along with AP, NYT and many others controlled overwhelmingly by wealthy white men worked quietly all through 2015-2016 to put Republicans in power. We saw it, and the techniques used have been analyzed and proven by studies.

[Cha]

4. Thanks, highplains!

[Thekaspervote]

5. Thx for posting!! Health insurance last I knew was in the forefront of many voters minds

[highplainsdem]

9. Yes. And both Warren and Sanders favor a change only 22% of Democratic voters want.

Which means that their combined 40% support in this outlier poll is apparently built at least partly on voter confusion.

[questionseverything]

6. i think it means

we voters know that if we are promised m4a, we might actually end up with a public option


we know we have to demand more because we always have to settle, this is what gets me, biden had years while he was in power with Obama to keep fighting for the public option but he didn't

in fact if a person acted like the aca was lacking in any way around here they were at least called a repub

if we ever get a good public option private insurance will go the way of the doo doo bird because it will be too expense


<shrugs> flame away

[highplainsdem]

12. No, it doesn't mean that. And you can't run on Medicare For All lin the GE and win.

You couldn't even run on Medicare For All as the ONLY issue is a Democratic primary and win.

[qazplm135]

26. sure you can

Two candidates are straight up running on it, and a third is running on it as an eventual solution and if you add them up together that's more or less 50 percent right there.

[blm]

7. Work out a plan between A and B.

Good to go in to the negotiation calling for Medicare for all and wind up with a strong public option that allows for private insurance.

I don’t get where anyone thinks so doom and gloom about this issue. You think Trump can explain his plan with more coherence than Warren?

[highplainsdem]

14. Trump isn't going to have to explain his plan if voters think our party's plan is Medicare For All

instead of a public option.

You can't campaign on:

Elect me since I'm talking about Medicare For All now but I'll really just go for a public option, so don't worry about Medicare For All. wink wink

[blm]

21. I trust Warren's coherence will prevail. It's her superpower gift.

[Hoyt]

20. If one can get elected on the M4A "negotiating stance." That's highly questionable, now.

Maybe it will change as it discussed more, but I'm skeptical.

[Celerity]

10. Wait until big healthcare, big pharma, and big insurance get done framing the public option

with a billion relentless dollar advert blitz designed to strangle it in the pram. It will have approval ratings as low or lower than M4A has now.

Under-promise, over-deliver as a campaign methodology seems to have been binned by all our candidates. We need to fix or even possibly (if the SCOTUS invalidates it all) start over from scratch on the ACA first.

[PatrickforO]

15. It's kind of a joke, you know, and the joke is on all of us.

Many of you have heard me say how I feel about my current employer-provided shitty, rationed healthcare with financially crippling copays, and my Delta Dental that is so chintzy that both of us have had to defer dental work we really need because we cannot afford it.

Yet, the greedheads in big pharma and the health insurance industry continue to buy our politicians and fight tooth and nail to eke out the uttermost farthing of profit.

Profit IS a dirty word when it comes to healthcare, prisons, and other public goods.

No, there's only one reason this thing we all need and we should have done long ago has not been done yet.

Greed. Corporate greed. Shareholder primacy. Profit over people. That is what it is. And it is unconscionable.

Healthcare for all is a moral issue. We should have it NOW, and you know what? We could afford it if we weren't spending nearly three quarters of a trillion on war. We spend more on - well, the euphemism is 'defense' - than the next TEN countries behind us. We have 200,000 pairs of 'boots on the ground' in nearly 170 countries. We even have a shiny new space force!

And you know what? That's shit to me. It doesn't help me or my family in the least.

I WANT HEALTHCARE NOW. I WANT YOU TO RAISE TAXES AND COVER ME AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN WITH MEDICARE.

There is no reason, nor is there any excuse for not doing this - only corporate greed. That is the only thing standing in the way - the FEAR of our politicians that they won't get elected if they propose this solution that ALL OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS ENJOY. Why don't we get it?

Greed. Lobbies. Citizens United. Shits like Lindsey Graham and Moscow Mitch. Shits like Donald Trump.

Now we have our field of candidates, and people are confused because the FUCKING MEDIA DOESN'T report ANYTHING without some twist to generate controversy. We'll never get the story from them. So, yeah, people are confused.

And you know what? Greed will fucking win. It wins every time. Every. Fucking. Time. Some pasty old guy in a pinstripe suit grasping with liver spotted old hands after more profits. Doesn't matter if we suffer and die.

So, the people overwhelmingly want to not worry about healthcare. They don't want to be wheeled through the collections department on the way to surgery. They don't want to die because they can't afford to pay for a fucking operation or lifesaving drugs.

What will we get out of this, finally? Well, the greed heads will fight and fight and fight and lie and lie and lie and there will be commercial after lying commercial intoning how the gummint shouldn't run your healthcare. So what we get will be diluted. If we have any luck at all, we'll get a public option, but there will be literally millions and millions of dollars in dark money lined up to prevent us from getting that. For sure.

In the meantime I get to watch my wife live in a hell of chronic pain because we have shitty, rationed healthcare with financially crippling copays.

You see why I like Warren? AOC? EVERYBODY who advocates Medicare for all???

[riverine]

17. No. I don't want Medicaid For All. But I do want universal health coverage. For all.

I like paying for premium health care insurance.

I also like paying for First Class when I fly. BUT IT COSTS MORE! Okay.

Why do you want to eliminate First Class?

I want to pay more.

Oh, it is unfair?

I also drive a BMW. Is that fair?

This whole "we all get equal stuff" will be the downfall of the Democratic Party.

[PatrickforO]

22. Well, I rejoice with you in your wealth. That's great. It really is.

Gosh, driving a Beemer is a lifetime accomplishment! It wouldn't even be on my radar screen, but if it is on yours and you can do it, then I honestly congratulate you! I mean it.

And first class? You bet! You deserve to be able to pay extra for a pod with a bed.

I don't begrudge any of those things. I do think you jumped from point A to point Z though.

The fact I want Medicare (not Medicaid) for all doesn't mean I want to keep you from being able to pay for extra coverage. Not at all. And you know what? Not. One. Single. Democratic. Candidate. Is. Saying. That. Oh, that's what the corporate media are saying because they are being paid to say that. That's what all the dark money from big pharma and health insurance is being used for - to shape this meme.

Like I say, not one is actually saying that. Well, maybe Bernie. But everyone else falls somewhere on the continuum between adding a public option and fixing the ACA to Medicare for All. The reality is the president will have to deal with both houses of Congress and negotiate something that everyone can live with moving forward. That's how our system works.

What I want is for me and my family to be able to have something like what the Brits have, where they, and I, can get the care we need when we need it. A basic package for everyone. No one uncovered. Not one single American dying because they don't have coverage (45,000 a year, did you know?), or not getting care because they cannot afford the deductible.

You want to be able to pay extra for a 'first class' package, great. More power to you.

But don't be tone deaf. Millions of Americans are languishing without care they need because they either aren't covered or they cannot afford the copay. That is what I want to end - for me, for my family and for everyone else. Because, I've got to say it - not all of us can afford a Beemer and can pay for flying first class. I never have, and doubtless never will.

So you can buy whatever you want. Heck, a mountain cabin, a luxury cruise, one of Joe Walsh's old guitars - that's GREAT. Do it! I rejoice with you in your ability to afford more than the rest of us. Cool. But you don't get to afford the best healthcare when there are 44 million Americans doing without, and another 38 million with inadequate care. That, my friend, is immoral.

So don't throw a monkey wrench into Medicare (not Medicaid) for all just because you want to be in some first class cabin. I'm fine with you paying for extra because you can. I just want me and everyone else to have ENOUGH.

[riverine]

23. Great post, Patrick. I want UHC for every American.

I just have a little quibble, Nothing we can't overcome.

The fact I want Medicare (not Medicaid) for all doesn't mean I want to keep you from being able to pay for extra coverage.

In reality you don't won't me paying for First Class seats on Delta. You just said so. I don't want Medicare/caid.

[questionseverything]

30. so when u r 65 u wont use it?

[qazplm135]

28. you know right now I have universal health coverage

it's called being on active duty. I get the same quality of care as a private. It's just fine for the most part.
I can't "pay" for "more" but I also know that no matter what happens, I don't have to spend a dime (other than the tax cost of such a problem that we all pay of course), and I will get taken care of including preventative care, rehab, etc. No bankruptcy, no 1000s a month in premiums, now technically true if I "change jobs" I will lose it (well not in my case, I'm retiring so it continues with a relatively small future cost for me).

So sorry if I don't really get your point. You'll be fine. You don't need "first class." I don't have "first class" but what I have is mighty fine, it's certainly not economy either, and it's free.

[wasupaloopa]

27. Do you even know what Medicare is? It reads like you don't.

Your employer must have picked shitty plans.

You say you want everyone to pay more taxes so you can be covered by Medicare.

You have to pay for Medicare. Your payroll deductions go toward Part A which is hospital bed day coverage. You have to pay for part B professional services. You have to pay for Part D drug coverage. And since Medicare does not pay for everything you have to buy supplemental insurance from an insurance company.

So you see we are not going to raise taxes to give you Medicare.

Another thing is doctors want to make a profit as do most clinics and hospitals. If they are not for profit they need subsidies.

Supplemental insurance companies make a profit. Medical supply companies make a profit as do drug makers.

[PatrickforO]

29. Fine. But why, when the Brits have a National Health Service,

the Danes, the Swedes, the Dutch and so on, all have good national coverage, and yes, they have to pay for supplemental insurance in some cases, as in Germany, do we have to be told constantly that it is not possible for us?

And, pray tell, what makes you think we won't have to raise taxes? And not just for Medicare, either. The giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations boosted the deficit and the debt to unsustainable proportions. And then Congress passed a spending bill that raises war spending to $733 billion, when we pay more for war spending than the next ten countries behind us combined.

Yeah, my employer has picked a shitty plan. They have.

But, wasupaloopa, WHY should I have to have a shitty plan? Why should my ex wife have to pay $800 per month in premiums and have a $5,000 deductible.

I mean, you say that my employer must have picked a shitty plan, and then you tell me 'we' (whomever that is - I presume you and every single other person on this site as well as throughout the United States) are not going to raise taxes to give me Medicare. Who are you to say that to me? You don't get to patronize me in that way.

And I would also dispute with you about most doctors wanting to make a profit. Most aspiring doctors who are currently in med school expect to be employees when they graduate with their giant student debt loads, not hang out their own shingles. As to hospitals, yes, they need to run well to retain earnings, but how do they do it in civilized countries, like Great Britain, Denmark and Holland? See, I got into local government many years ago because I wanted to make a difference, not a profit. Honestly, I'd much rather have a doctor who got into medicine for those reasons as well. Not sure I could trust someone who got into it for the money.

Yes, I am aware medical supplies and drug companies make a profit. Oh yes. That's why diabetics in this country are rationing insulin, because it has gone up to what, $700/month. A lifesaving drug at $700 per month with a significant portion of those who depend on it not being able to pay. In what world is that moral? In what world is that even OK?

When you say you 'aren't raising taxes to give me Medicare,' you are implying that you are perfectly willing to allow 44 million Americans to go without healthcare and another 38 million have inadequate healthcare, like my ex does. I'm willing to pay much more in taxes, because you know what? I already pay a 'tax' out the nose for healthcare. That 'tax' is called premiums, and what it amounts to is profit for a middle man. It goes up double digits every year - I pay more and get less.

Is it REALLY OK with you, as a policy position, that ever more of the costs of healthcare get passed on to individual consumers? Really? Because the initial idea of the ACA was to create a mandatory enrollment so that the risk pool could be broadened, but the Republicans have attacked that 24/7/365 with millions of dollars since its inception. That's why our system is broken again.

The greed and lust for profit of a few hurting the many.

[wasupaloopa]

33. You can't compare us with them. They do not have our history of health care nor do they have even a

fraction of our population.

Before our time Europe practiced what was the stakeholder wealth maximization model. Stakeholders were the owners, the customers, the workers, the suppliers and the community.

With that in mind they have a different model of health care than we do.

We practice the shareholders wealth maximization model. Shareholders are the owners. With that in mind we have a for profit healthcare system.

Europe is trending toward our model and some of us want to adopt their model but not all of us.

We can't overnight become Europe.

I think we have gone a long way with the ACA and the best thing we can do is add a public option that could give you the coverage you need at a price you can afford. That leaves those who want private insurance the ability to keep it.

It is faster and easier and more acceptable and more doable than to try and remake our society into what it would need to be to adopt some other country's healthcare system.

[PatrickforO]

34. Yes, I'm writing a series of essays about the corrosive effect the shareholder primacy

doctrine has had on workers, consumers, communities and our environment.

A couple of thoughts:

There is nothing in the law that requires shareholder primacy. That doctrine is nothing but a theory. It is such because most of the players agree it is so. That's it.

As evidence, I call your attention to the corporate lawyer and law professor Lynn Stout, who in 2012 wrote a book called "The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public." This is a sound book, written to refute the shareholder primacy doctrine. In the forward, Stout mentions that this 'ironclad' doctrine is relatively new - prior to about 1980, corporate officers tended to a much wider view of the purpose of a corporation. Then, the Chicago School arises, with Milton Friedman and postulates that shareholder primacy is THE way to go. So we had Enron, the BP Gulf disaster, and so on.

More people are wising up to this issue. Consider Warren's August 2018 legislation called 'The Accountable Capitalism Act.' This legislation, which would not pass in this congress, nor be signed into law by Trump, forces that fiduciary responsibility to expand to other stakeholders, not merely shareholders. I just saw Rep. Katie Porter on Maher, and she spoke about overturning that doctrine.

And, of course, against that backdrop, we have the Federal Reserve Act, which has created a system of scarcity that doesn't have to be. More people are now thinking about, and embracing Modern Monetary Theory in this vein.

The problem is, wasupaloopa, that our current system is simply unsustainable. I mean, morality aside, if we don't do something substantial to reorganize ourselves around human need as opposed to human greed, we will go extinct. That might not be a bad thing, I guess, because if you look at the effect sapiens have had on this planet (check Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens), you see that if we went extinct right now, at this very moment, ALL other species - flora and fauna - would actually be better off. That's saying something.

So, yeah, I'm an economist who tends to democratic socialism - in the sense I genuinely believe that people need to have a say in policies that affect them, at the local, state and national level. To me, that is the definition of democracy. Now, in this republic, we do that, in theory, through those we elect. Unfortunately, as Senator Whitehouse says, we need to get all this dark money and corporate corruption out of DC and our state houses, because it is a cancer.

I think Bernie has been misunderstood when he calls for a 'political revolution.' What he is saying is that when we all get fed up enough and stand up, demanding some change, that change will happen. And, you know, it can either be through this system or a bloody worldwide revolution. But that change is now an existential necessity for our species.

[George II]

18. Quite simply people want to have access to more than one health insurance coverage option....

And I'm glad the question said "health care coverage", not simply "health care". Health care is the system of doctors, clinics, laboratories, hospitals, etc. That is NOT up for debate.

What we're debating is "coverage" or "insurance", or how to pay for health care.

[highplainsdem]

19. Exactly.

[Cha]

24. Thanks, George!

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Couldn't find the MOE for the subset of 298 for question 17

It was 5.7% for the full 800 surveyed.

You neglected to mention question 17b, where 40% said the US health care system should eventually move to Universal Single Payer, and only 33% said there should always be an option for private insurance.

[5starlib]

31. Warren hasn't yet been held accountable for her health care plan

No one has attacked her at the debates. It's time for her turn in the barrel. She needs to be called out to task for her plans and made to explain how she will pay for them.