On Health Care Reform, the Roar of Partisanship
Several polls lately have underscored broad agreement on some key elements of health care reform, prompting hopes for accord at the White House summit this week. The challenge: Other, equally central aspects of reform are seen negatively – with vast partisan gaps.
The Republican catcalls that accompanied release of President Obama’s revamped plan yesterday demonstrated the difficulty. And it’s far more than a Washington phenomenon: The reality is that even as Americans decry partisanship, they practice it. It’s a touchstone of political sentiment, grounded in fundamental differences on the size and role of government. And that makes health care reform a perfect storm of an issue for partisan division.
There is room for agreement on the kumbaya proposals, such as expanding coverage; 80 percent of Americans in our latest ABC/Post poll favor banning limits on pre-existing conditions, for instance, and 72 percent like the idea of an employer mandate, with bipartisan majorities in both cases. But there’s far less accord on other aspects of reform, such as its cost and complexity, its possible impact on care and – touching the very heart of partisanship – the nature of government involvement in the system.
The push and pull of these issues explains why for months reform hasn’t done better, or worse, than about an even split in public opinion. Another result is telling in two ways: On one hand 63 percent of Americans do favor some form of comprehensive health care reform – a plan, then, just not this one. On the other hand, that view’s held by 88 percent of Democrats, dropping sharply to 56 percent of independents and further to just 42 percent of Republicans.
If that 46-point Democratic-Republican gap doesn’t mark out the challenge at the upcoming bipartisan summit, there are others aplenty. Our data show a 36-point partisan gap on the idea of a personal mandate requiring all Americans to have health insurance, a 39-point gap on whether or not the current plan is too complicated and a whopping 50-point division on whether it’s too expensive: Eighty-two percent of Republicans say yes while just 32 percent of Democrats agree.
These, note, aren’t even the overtly political questions, such as approval of Obama’s handling of health care (55-point gap) and preference for the Obama over the Republicans in Congress to deal with it – the mother of all partisan gaps, 68 points.
There are issues that overcome partisanship; opposition to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on election campaign spending by corporations is one recent example. Accord on the popular parts of health care reform is another. But as our data show, there are divisive bits aplenty, ones that cut to the substantive center of partisanship in this country.
It’s been suggested that Obama, by challenging the Republicans to come up with their own plan if they don’t like his, is trying to paint them into the corner as obstructionist. Our last poll, as we’ve reported, indicates some resonance there. While a substantial 44 percent say Obama’s doing “too little” to compromise with the Republican leaders in Congress on important issues, more, 58 percent, say the Republicans aren’t trying hard enough to get along.
The challenge is that while compromise is popular, principles are too. And on health care, they collide with a bang.
Check out the table below.
ABC/Post poll - 2/8/10 Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling health care? Approve DisapproveAll 43% 53Dem 72 24 Rep 17 82Ind 38 57 Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care reform - (Obama) or (the Republicans in Congress)? Obama RepsAll 46% 41Dem 80 13Rep 12 77 Ind 43 40 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)? Support OpposeAll 46% 49Dem 76 19Rep 17 79Ind 44 52 Do you think the proposed changes to the health care system are too complicated, or do you think the changes have to be this complex to accomplish what they’re trying to do? Too Have to be complicated this complex All 60% 35Dem 40 55Rep 79 18Ind 64 30 Do you think the proposed changes to the health care system are too expensive, or do you think the cost is about right for what they’re trying to do? Too expensive Cost is about rightAll 59% 34Dem 32 58Rep 82 13Ind 65 28 Do you think the government should or should not require businesses to offer private health insurance for their full-time employees? Should Should not All 72% 27 Dem 84 15 Rep 62 36 Ind 69 31 Do you think the government should or should not require all Americans to have health insurance, either from their employer or from another source, with tax credits or other aid to help low-income people pay for it? All 56% 43Dem 76 22Rep 40 58Ind 51 47 Do you think the government should or should not require insurance companies to sell coverage to people regardless of pre-existing conditions? All 80% 19Dem 89 10Rep 71 26Ind 78 20 Do you think lawmakers in Washington should (keep trying to pass) a comprehensive health care reform plan, or should (give up on) comprehensive health care reform? Keep trying Give to pass up on itAll 63% 34Dem 88 8Rep 42 55Ind 56 39
Email
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
This is exactly why Obama wen ahead and crafted his own blueprint for reform legislation. He understands that Americans want a bipartisan effort and is willing to try on Thursday, but it will of course be impossible to negotiate such a wide gulf of opinion with the GOP.
Posted by: matt | February 23, 2010, 10:39 am 10:39 am
matt, President Obama’s plan is the Senate plan with a few modifications and some of the House plan thrown in. It isn’t bipartisan if you take that huge mess and say this is where we start.
Posted by: wyn | February 23, 2010, 11:23 am 11:23 am
Require insurance companies to sell coverage
to people regardless of pre-existing conditions? This part is easy as long is insurance is required.
Even go to the point of letting people refuse to participate but it must be in writing. They lose the right to have pre-existing conditions covered for a period of time if they do get coverage.
The government will pay for necessary care but can wage garnish up to 50% of wages until the care is paid for.
Posted by: wyn | February 23, 2010, 11:36 am 11:36 am
Why should we believe this healthscare will help, when the stimulus seems to have done the opposite of what was predicted? – the stimulus was for jobs – don’t know of any permanent private jobs.
The economy is hurting, and debt is unsustainable – the gov. is not adequately handling the social services presently available – why give more control to an already failing gov. bureaucracy, and insult many people saying this is what you want, and you’re going to get gov. control of your private decisions.
Posted by: Kate | March 3, 2010, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm
I have paid taxes all my life. The Government should provide Health Care for it’s people. We are suppose to be a civilized country.
Posted by: Mac | March 4, 2010, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
If the Government takes the American youth and send them overseas to fight and die, it’s only fair that the Government takes care of these fighter’s procreators in order for them to able to keep supplying the required cannon fodder for all the American wars we get into around the world. Remember that most of these young men don’t join the Arm Force because of patriotism or love to America. They join because the jobs are in China, Mexico, Taiwan and, the Arm Forces provide health care and job security, as long you are alive.
If you die you next of kin get $400.000 (Taxed, of course)
Posted by: garcia | March 6, 2010, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
The cost is a lie, Medicare “doc fix” has been left out purposely to fool the public. It would add some $250 billion, check the facts at the CATO website.
“This has been tough from day one. It’s been tough for 40 years,” Biden said. And Joe is right, Americans are resilient and they continue to resist SOCIALISM.
The WH and the congress lie to the public about Obamacare. It will ration as it has provision to penalize doctors that run up costs, just don’t call it rationing. And look at the abortion doublespeak, ten pages to pretend abortion isn’t covered where just one clear sentence would have prevented abortion. And how about “doc fix” it is $250 billion left out to keep the CBO score down.
I’m afraid we are dealing with pathological liars and ideologues. The question is will their chicanery, dishonesty, bribes and threats pay off for them or will the American people prevail through representation.
Will it be TRANSPARENCY or will it be DESPOTISM?
Posted by: Ed Taylor | March 19, 2010, 12:22 am 12:22 am
Instead of a trained doctor, a government official will choose your medical treatments and chooses whether you live or die. And if you’re treatment is expensive, you think they’re going to treat you? Ha, no. They’d rather let you die than risk big bucks for a life.
Posted by: Muscle Boost | March 23, 2010, 12:46 am 12:46 am