| A Rasmussen poll was released today about the popularity of single-payer health care. According to the poll, only 32 percent favor single-payer health care, while 57 percent are opposed to it.
What to make of this? Without seeing the question, it's hard to make much of a conclusion. That's because the public's support of single-payer health care varies wildly depending how the question is asked. (Here's a link to previous polls for an illustration.) In fact, this Rasmussen poll is the first that found single-payer backers in the minority. Is it an outlier - or the result of months of Republican fear-mongering? Certainly those polled aren't overly familiar with the details of single-payer health care: only 24 percent thought that a single-payer system would lower costs.
In another, related poll, Rasmussen found that 51 percent "fear" the government more than private insurance companies. Which is kind of astounding, given that insurance companies have neither arms nor prisons. This poll, of course, is being used to explain why single-payer health insurance is unpopular; but those results belie the polls on Medicare users, who rate their insurance and care consistently higher than those who have private insurance. And we've seen how people react to the idea that Medicare benefits might be threatened. Yet a number of people don't realize that Medicare is a government program.
I have to agree with Steven Taylor:
...public opinion polling is mostly useful under two basic conditions: when there is a clear choice regarding the issue being polled and when public information in the target population is high. Neither of those factor exist in regards to this poll. As such, it really isn't especially useful.
The astonishing ignorance around health care reform is reflected in the right-wing blog reaction to the Rasmussen poll.
Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard writes, "Rasmussen's latest poll shows ObamaCare dropping like a rock," while Howie from the Jawa Report exults in the poll, chirping "Go ahead congress [sic], make the voters [sic] day, I double dog dare you." Of course, that single-payer health care has anything to do with any of the reforms being batted around in Congress has to come as a complete shock to single-payer advocates. We've discussed the details of the various plans ad naseum on this blog, so you know single-payer health care ain't in the equation.
Gateway Pundit ratchets up the ignorance: "Only 32% of Americans favor Obama's plan for a single-payer system," GP writes. "This video shows how ordinary Americans feel about getting socialized health care rammed down their throats by this Congress." Likewise, PowerLine's John confuses single-payer health care with socialized medicine:
Today's Rasmussen survey has data that shed considerable light on the health care debate. The question posed to likely voters was whether they favor a single-payer health care system. ("Single payer" is a euphemism for socialized medicine.) Americans overwhelmingly reject government medicine, 57-32 percent.
Of course, we've been over this before. "Socialized medicine" means that the government owns and runs all of the health care facilities and employs the health care workers. (Think VA.) "Single-payer health care" is a system where there's essentially one insurance provider. (It doesn't even have to be a government insurance provider.) Health care facilities and workers remain as they are.
Other little tidbits of ignorance abound in the reactions, too. Take this:
Obama says you can keep your plan if you like it (interestingly, he keeps saying that the entire system is broken and sucks, yet, you can keep the same health insurance that is broken and sucks?), and, he is correct. You can. Until you decide you want to make a change, even a tiny one. Then you must move into a government approved one. If you work for certain really big companies, you have a 5 year grace period before any change forces you into a government approved plan.
I have no idea what William Teach is talking about. "Government approved" plan? All insurance plans are already "government approved," in that they have to conform to the regulation and laws governing insurance in the various states. Or does he mean, a "government run" public option? Which is also false. I assume he's unclear on the concept of the Health Insurance Exchange, where people meeting certain criteria (right now in the written House proposal, those working in very small companies, the uninsured, and the unemployed) have the right to essentially shop around for the best plan, which might include a public option. But no one will be compelled to take any particular plan - although there's likely to be a mandate to take some kind of plan.
All-in-all, the profound ignorance seeping from these blogs is astonishing. And these are supposed to be the people who are, you know, actually interested in politics and policy. No wonder Tea Baggers are running around interrupting public meetings with slogans about "socialized medicine" and other delusional claims. They have no friggin' idea what they're actually protesting, do they? |
