Aug 24, 2009 4:35pm

Views on a Public Option: Let the Fur Fly

Fur flew last week over public opinion on the proposal that’s emerged as the single most contentious point of debate in health care reform – a “public option,” or government-created alternative to private insurance. It’s an argument on which proponents of reform have been losing ground – and trying to claw it back.

Attacking polls usually is a sign of a worried politician, and that’s what we saw: A news release from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi jumped on an NBC poll question that found 43 percent support for a public option, criticizing its wording and analysis alike.

Pelosi cited other polls finding majority support for the proposal; she quoted Democratic pollster Mark Mellman as saying the idea “generates barely a ripple of controversy… When different pollsters, using different methods and different wording, all converge on the same answer, you can bet the public really does support a public option.” Mellman’s piece was titled, “Voters settle on a public plan.”

But there’s evidence to suggest otherwise. Public opinion on health care reform long has been highly malleable – as we reported back in June, it’s an issue on which pushback works. Given that reality, the variability of polling data this summer and the lack of specifics in reform itself, “settled” is about the last thing I’d call public opinion on this issue.

While we found 62 percent in favor of a public option in June, that dived to 37 percent if it would put many private insurers out of business because they couldn’t compete, as critics charge. In another question, 78 percent were concerned – 51 percent “very” concerned – about government bureaucracy in a reformed health care system. Even more were concerned about a potential impact on the deficit. And 58 percent disbelieved the administration’s assurance that they’d be able to keep their current plan if they wanted to.

How has this all played out in the hot summer of debate over health care reform? In our latest ABC/Post poll, released Friday, we found support for a public option down to 52 percent, a significant drop – led by a 17-point decline among independents. Others also have shown a decline; the Kaiser Family Foundation found support for a public option down from 68 percent in June to 59 percent in July, then remaining there this month.

Still, Kaiser’s 59 percent is more than our 52 percent – and other polls have ranged much more widely. How so?

There are a few possible reasons, many relating to the movable nature of attitudes on reform. One, Kaiser’s poll was completed Aug. 11; ours, a week later. Another, it describes a public option as “similar to Medicare,” and support for a public option in its data is 19 points higher among seniors (52 percent) than it is in ours (33 percent).

In July, a CBS News/New York Times poll similarly described a public option as “something like the Medicare coverage” seniors receive, and found 66 percent support. A Time magazine poll completed the same day didn’t mention Medicare, and found 56 percent support; a poll Pew poll two days earlier also didn’t mention Medicare, and found 52 percent support. The gap between seniors in the CBS/Times and Time magazine polls was 13 points; in the CBS/Times and Pew polls, a narrower 6 points.

Kaiser did a split-sample test in June and found no significant overall difference when it mentioned Medicare. It could be that an effect has arisen since. It also could be that entirely other factors are at play. Question structure can matter; some of these polls ask about a public option within a list of items while others ask it as a stand-alone question. Several also have different levels of undecideds, a function of polling technique; last week’s ABC/Post and NBC polls had nearly identical levels of opposition to a public option (46 and 47 percent, respectively), but 9 points of difference in support alongside 8 points of difference in indecision.

Then there’s question order. NBC asked about a public option immediately after asking people if they were concerned about health care reform “going too far.” Fifty-four percent said yes, which might have cued lower support for a government-administered plan. On the other hand, its July poll had a similar result with a different preceding question.

Polls have described a public option as “government-run” (Fox, 44 percent support in July), “government-sponsored” (Time, 56 percent support six days later), “administered” by the government (NBC, CBS/Times and Kaiser). Our ABC/Post question says it would be created by the government, but doesn’t specify how it would be run, since this isn’t set – and when we tested it in June, we found 2-1 preference for its being administered independently ("with federal funding and oversight") rather than "by a government agency." Kaiser, though, tested the phrase “government-administered,” in April, and again found no effect.

These approaches underscore the challenges in polling on health care reform; it’s tough to come up with wording that precisely portrays proposals that themselves haven’t been clearly defined.

There are, though, clear indicators of the problems facing reform proponents. Approval of President Obama’s handling of health care dropped from 57 percent in April to 46 percent in last week’s ABC/Post poll; disapproval rose from 29 percent to 50 percent. (Disapproval rose from 26 percent in April to 43 percent in July in Pew polls, and from 28 percent in April to 43 percent in July in AP polls.) In our poll, views that reform will “do more harm than good” rose 7 points from June. And when we asked people if they supported or opposed the proposed changes being developed by Congress and the Obama administration, it was 45-50 percent, with “strong” opponents outnumbering strong supporters by 13 points. (We rotated the words “Congress” and “the Obama administration” in this question; no effect.)

Pelosi did score one point in her complaint with NBC. Its analysis described its finding on a public option as “a shift from last month.” At 46 percent support in July vs. 43 percent in August, that change was within the poll’s margin of sampling error, as Pelosi rightly noted.

Another complaint, though, was far off base. Pelosi noted that an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in June asked people “how important” they think it is “to give people a choice of both a public plan… and a private plan,” (76 percent “extremely” or “quite” important), while in July and August it asked people if they favor or oppose a public plan. The questions are very different ones, and the word “choice” in this context, without any counterbalancing term, is rife with positive attribute bias.

Pelosi’s handout accused NBC of “bad analysis, worse question.” In fact its question was a perfectly reasonable one – “Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?” It appears that the speaker’s real complaint was not with the wording – but with the result.

Click here for a list of all the questions and results on a “public option” we’ve compiled for this memo.

User Comments

when you promise people they will have the same health care as members of congress with no increase in tax if you make under 250k and it will be deficit neutral…you have a big problem. your credibility with the american people is gone.

Posted by: catman | August 24, 2009, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm

Gee I wonder why Nancy Pelosi protests how the poll questions were written? Could it be because she can’t accept the results.
I’m curious about how the pollsters choose their pollees. Maybe they should do some regional polling, I’m betting their results would be much different. It would show the large metro areas as pro healthcare reform and the fly-over states against reform.

Posted by: WyoWhy | August 24, 2009, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm

Providing universal health care is not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. So, why isn’t Obama following the constitutionally proscribed amendment process?
Bring John Shadegg’s ‘Enumerated Powers Act’ to a Vote
It’s time for Congress to, “Cite it, chapter and verse.” Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that. Help us bring this bill to a vote.
For The General Welfare:
1. International and interstate commerce (trade)
2. Naturalization
3. Bankruptcy
4. Coin Money, establish its value
5. Weights and Measures
6. Punish counterfeiting
7. Postal Service
8. Issue patents and copyrights
9. Establish Federal Courts
10. Govern District of Columbia
11. Purchase real estate for necessary buildings

Posted by: BenDoubleCrossed | August 24, 2009, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm

When Obama says that “no illegals will be covered under this plan” he is right! However, this plan will take time for implementation and by that time Obama will IMPLEMENT AMNESTY FOR ALL ILLEGALS AND THEN THEY WON’T BE ILLEGALS AND THEY WILL BE COVERED UNDER THE PLAN….THEY SURE KNOW HOW SHADE THE TRUTH!! TYPICAL FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION!!! JUST LIKE ABORTION IS UNDER THE GUISE OF “WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE SERVICE”!!!!!!!

Posted by: ross | August 24, 2009, 7:46 pm 7:46 pm

catman – You said “when you promise people they will have the same health care as members of congress with no increase in tax if you make under 250k and it will be deficit neutral…you have a big problem. your credibility with the american people is gone.”
Contrary to what many believe Congressmen do not have FREE health insurance. Their employer is the federal government and like many employers, it provides him with an insurance plan from a private insurance company (AETNA, Blue Cross, Health Net, Kaiser, etc). Congressmen have been required to get their health insurance in this manner since passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1983. In this case the federal government utilizes the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) plan to provide a choice of different private insurance plans to choose from, the federal government as the employer pays a portion (approximately 66%) of the monthly premium and the Congressman as the employee pays the remainder. The Congressman is responsible for any co-pays or deductable payments when service is provided by a healthcare provider. The Congressman is also susceptible to the limits within the plan he chooses, none of the plans cover 100% of the costs the insured eventually reaches a point where he has to dig into his own pockets. The governments only other involvement with the FEHB is to negotiate rates and benefits for each plan once a year. If you want to view the plans and their limits, deductibles, and co-pays just Google “FEHB” and go to the site and see what the different plans are.
The FEHB health plans are either nationwide (plan available anywhere within the country) or regional (plan available only in one state or a portion of a state) FEHB allows the Congressman to change between plans once a year during what is referred to as an open season and he can switch with no lapse in coverage due to pre-existing conditions and if he changes jobs within the Federal Government he can take his current plan with him if the plan is available (he moved from one region to another) at his new position, if not he can switch with no problems. If the government were to open these plans to the public the monthly premiums for a family plan would roughly be between $425.00 and $1300.00, for an individual the monthly premium would roughly be between $177.00 and $550.00 and then everyone could have the same health care as our Congressmen. One of the differences in the plan costs is the level of benefits provided and the amount the patient pays (co-pays or deductable) when receiving healthcare.
Would you be willing to pay this much to have access to the same health care coverage as members of Congress?

Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | August 24, 2009, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm

It is perfectly legitimate to protest the results of polls when wording is unfairly presented. Asking Americans whether they want complete government health care when nothing like that has been proposed is wrongheaded and unfair.

Posted by: matt | August 24, 2009, 9:47 pm 9:47 pm

These bills and this administration clearly intend to lead us into complete government healthcare. They pretend that there are bits and pieces of freedom but each morsel has a tax or punishment designed to eliminate that freedom. We have already been tricked out of $780,000,000,000 in “stimulus” money and are now mired in another and even more costly war. Amnesty and this healthcare bill Will create massive costs, long lines and a lower standard of living than we can ever imagine. Why do union retirees get $10 billion set aside in this bill for their retirement and why don’t they have to pay healthcare tax? Obama announced cheerfully some time ago that we were out of money. So are we being set up to take yet another fall?

Posted by: Catherine | August 24, 2009, 11:32 pm 11:32 pm

Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception Why?

Posted by: Dan | August 25, 2009, 4:05 am 4:05 am

We don’t have a public health option because our system developed much differently than everyone else’s post WWII. You can’t turn it around of a dime in a minute.
Obama will commit political suicide with the option – along with the rest of the democrats. You cannot pass a bill so contentious that it has way too much controversy associated with it. If you do, it will come back to haunt you at some point.
We need to have a clear majority consensus on this one. If not, it’s pure politics.
I say pass it minus the public option now. If the mood and finances are right down the road – go for the public option. But don’t blow the whole enchilada to get it all done at once.
It won’t work! Any experienced Democrat (other than the fool Pelosi) will tell you that.

Posted by: Jon F | August 25, 2009, 5:03 am 5:03 am

Passing the public health insurance option is the only way to make insurance affordable. Right now the private insurers are having a field day with no true competition. They are running up to a 30% overhead while good old Medicare runs a 4%. The private insurers have no real incentive to keep their own costs down as they are free to raise their premiums to adjust.
The private health insurance lobby is spending over a million a day this month to convince you the public option is a bad idea. I’d like to think my fellow citizens can see through their sales pitch and recognize the truth that they fear competition will limit their profits and grandiose corporate salaries. This is about corporate greed vs. public need.

Posted by: Lydia | August 25, 2009, 8:22 am 8:22 am

Doesn’t smell good when the President, and other Federal Employees can be exempt from the new health plan. IF ITS GOOD ENOUGH FOR US (average citizen), WHY DO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES GET TO BE EXEMPT??

Posted by: ThisSmellsBad | August 25, 2009, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm

I’m hoping that you come to my neck of the wood betca those number will change. poll some people in middleclass and poorclass who don’t have the best of insurnace. Those poll number will be higher. We are for the public option more than not, come on don,t think your polling is reaching people who are losing their healthcare everyday. STOP TRYING TO BLOCK CHANGE.THE WORLD IS CHANING, SO WE HAVE TO CHANGE WITH IT.I think nancy is right we really do want choice.

Posted by: rose | August 25, 2009, 5:48 pm 5:48 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.