Public Opinion on Health Care Reform is Warped (in a Negative Direction) by Misinformation: Nate Silver Presents the Evidence
Nate Silver on FiveThirtyEight.com writes, regarding the question of whether the supposed public opposition to health care reform reflects misconceptions (and misinformation) about what’s in the bill:
“The following table combines two sets of questions from the Kaiser survey, each of which ask people about the individual components of the bill. One set of questions asks people whether they believe that the bill contains each provision; the other set, which I’ve tabulated on a net basis, asks them whether they’d be more or less likely to support a bill if it contained such a provision.
[Table follows]
“What we see is that most individual components of the bill are popular — in some cases, quite popular. But awareness lags behind. Only 61 percent are aware that the bill bans denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Only 42 percent know that it bans lifetime coverage limits. Only 58 percent are aware that it set up insurance exchanges. Just 44 percent know that it closes the Medicare donut hole — and so on and so forth.
“Awareness”, by the way, might be a forgiving term in this context. For the most part in Kaiser’s survey, when the respondent doesn’t affirm that the bill contains a particular provision, he actually believes that the bills don’t include that provision. 29 percent, for instance, say the bill does not contain a provision requiring insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions; 20 percent think it does not expand subsidies.
“How would public opinion change if people were fully informed about the content of the bills? It’s hard to say for sure, but on average, the individual components of the bill are favored by a net of +22 points. An NBC poll in August also found that support went from a -6 net to a +10 when people were actually provided with a description of the bill.
“Obviously, it’s not as though this is going to do much to help the bill’s popularity in the immediate term. But in the long term, once people actually see the go bill into effect, their perceptions are liable to improve, in ways that might help the Democratic party. Although there are a few things like the individual mandate which the public obviously does not like, most of the other components of the bill are things they are liable to be quite pleased with and to find quite reasonable.
“Lastly, it’s much harder to read the opinion polls as a “mandate” against the health care bill when much of that opinion is based on demonstrably false beliefs, some of which have been perpetuated deliberately by opponents. And it’s much harder to know how the Democrats ever expect to pass a health care bill or similarly complicated policies like cap-and-trade if they wither in the face of polls that reflect less a disparity of opinion and more a poverty of accurate information.”
January 26th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
You’re leaving out a lot of the “don’t likes” and are picking at some of the few “good” things in the bill, which upon closer examination (such as the pre-ex vis-a-vis cost concerns). People don’t like the bill because it includes too many bad things in exchange for almost nothing, i.e. skimpy insurance with high deductibles and high copays and high cost, associated with mandates, taxes, fines and fees.
People don’t want their health insurance benefits taxed, for instance. And they REALLY don’t want that to happen. People don’t want to have mandates to buy private insurance. Especially since there’s no cap on how high premiums can go. People do NOT want fines & fees for not buying “private insurance”. People don’t think it’s fair that the House/Senate bills envision that, a family of 4 earning around $50,000, should spend between 12% to 18% (once you factor in the deductibles and copays) of their gross income on health insurance. Especially since someone earning say, a million, is not required to pay 10-12% of THEIR income for the same insurance. How regressive can you get? If anybody could “afford” it, it would be the millionaire, right? People would most likely be in favor of a robust public option (administered by medicare and fully capable of negotiating discounts, etc. with providers and vendors) and/or medicare for all, assuming it can be funded. Even if it’s rolled in slowly over time (i.e. covering from age 55 to start, instead of 65). Nobody wants the Exchanges. They don’t work. It’s been proven time after time. That’s just a trick.
So, your post leaves much to be desired in really getting to the nitty gritty of what people don’t like about HCR. And there’s a lot not to like. And it’s not a misperception to dislike this “plan”. It’s just plain common sense.
January 26th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Marta,
Good comment. I’ve been reading the ‘progreswsive’ mind for several years now and much of its ‘good’ has a pernicious undercurrent to it. What I have not yet concluded is if it is simply delusion or intentionally insidious.
I think that for the majority of those types it is largely a missing component of the brain, ie, honest practicality. For the promoters of un-thought I am still pondering the motivations, somewhat. For those ‘engineering’ the ‘progressive’ agenda I believe it is definitely intentionally subversive.
They are very practical and are picking up the pieces financially and materially as they fall into their hands.
The dupes and deluded apparently have no idea how they are really just the pawns. They imagine only modern ‘conservatives’ are mis-lead.
There are None-So-Blind, you know, as those who .. . . . .
January 26th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Do you think, David R., that there is something insidious about the health care systems of other affluent democracies, which are delivering to their people better health care at half of what we Americans are paying for our system? Do you think the American status quo regarding health care –with 45,000 Americans a year dying for lack of health insurance, a phenomenon unknown in those other countries– is less insidious?
January 26th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
As far as this particular issue which has devolved somewhat into liberal vs ‘conservative. it is the most misguided mixed-up approach I have ever seen purporting to be a constructive at least partial solution to a very real problem, ie, the cost of ‘health care’ and the unaffordability for millions.
There are numerous simple approaches available to the constructive well intentioned mind with power of government to act.
They do not involve hundreds of pages of most do not know what !
“We’ need change and I expect all this will bring about a demand for change that ‘conservatives’ (rank and file) will support as well.
If this current Obama/Democrat thing, though, goes in the can . . I think we will be the better for it. (and that is not about ‘defeating an Obama initiative’)
January 26th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Nobody’s wild about this form. But given the political situation, with 40 Republicans determined to block anything, leaving every other Senator –including Lieberman and Nelson– in a position to hold everything hostage, I’m not sure how something better could have been passed. In other words, David, the complete obstructionism of the Republicans made it pretty much a certainty that this thing would come out a mess.
Reagan got stuff through Congress, with the help of some Democrats. W got things through Congress, with the help of some Democrats. If there’d been only a handful of Republicans willing to put the country ahead of the single priority of making Obama fail, then there’d have been a bit of breathing space. Something much better could have been passed.
Even this bill, as it is, accomplishes some important things. And it provides a basis for improvement in the future.
If it goes into the can, as you say, then what? Medicare heads toward bankruptcy, the proportion of GDP going into health care (which has DOUBLED since Clinton tried and failed to pass reform) will continue to climb, bankrupting families, and continuing to hobble American corporations competing in a global market against companies that do not have to carry that burden.
So how good is that?
January 26th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
It will not go on as it is, I’m saying, simply because it cannot.
As the hardship is spreading to more and more families we will be seeing more initiatives. It is the American way. The need just must become real for more people and obvious to sensible ‘conservative’ minds accustomed to dealing with practical problems day after day, year after year.
It should not -and I think will not- be some kind of issue for partisan ‘points’.
So I guess I do feel it will be best if this does fail.
The idea that it is THIS or all is lost I believe is fallacious.
However it has done good even if . . because it has brought the need onto the friont burner and serious people will begin to pay more real attention
especially as the need is growing.
January 26th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
This is a good moment to say again what I did a while ago
that the theme for the new unity will be economic
January 27th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Why fallacious? When do you think anyone is going to try again, if all the efforts of 2009 end up leaving those who try as empty-handed and politically wounded as those who tried SIXTEEN years ago. (And it was a long time before that.)
Most political analysts I’ve read DO believe, on the basis of such evidence, and a common sense understanding of the lessons that political leaders will draw from it, that it is THIS and it is NOW or it is nothing for a good long while.
And just as we are paying an enormous price –as a nation, as an economy, as families– for the failure of Clinton’s efforts, we will pay dearly if this present effort goes down in defeat, leaving us indeed with this status quo for years to come.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Maybe so, Andy; but I do not think so. We need to deal with specific issues\in specific ways.
Hospital ownership and profiteering. Tommy Frist who with his Father and Jack Massey founded HCA is a Billionaire living ‘in town’ on fifty acres . . ete . . etc
Insurance programs that exclude for this reason or that.
Fraudulent padded billing by Drs and Hospitals
Extended periods of patents for prescription drugs
Excessive use of the system by those Who DO NOT pay.
A Strong review of government meddling in the Medical Field
And fundamental to most of our problems the contri-bribe system of government.
I believe in attempting reforms, by degrees if necessay, but as rapidly as the need indicates and I know we will make better progress if there is no attempt to violate the societal values of the majority of Americans in the process; and on this latter, that is what I and most others understand is the essence of Democracy.
We will see . . .
January 27th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
The idea that this health care program is some violation of “the societal values of the majority of Americans in the process” is a complete arrogation of ownership of American societal values. Is Medicare a violation of the values of the majority of Americans? It’s one of the government’s most popular programs, so it must be in harmony with a lot of people’s values. If this health care program were an extension of Medicare to the rest of the population, it would be a whole lot bolder and impactful of a change in America than it is: this is very modest, a small step in that general direction. Where is the evidence that American’s societal values are not just as compatible with going where this health care reform (modest by any international standard) as with staying in the current situation, where people die and go bankrupt and the profits of the health insurance companies can quintuple in the course of a decade with practically non-existent economic progress for the average American working family?
January 27th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Where is the evidence that American’s societal values are not just as compatible with going where this health care reform (modest by any international standard) as with staying in the current situation, ABS
You see, you have just asked the primary question re this whole process, ie,
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE ?
January 27th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Yes, I believe that we should believe things because the evidence shows them to be true. Do you agree with that epistemology?
If you do, are you questioning my assertion that the evidence shows that most Americans like Medicare, and does it not follow that something rather mildly in that direction cannot therefore be a violation of American social values?
January 27th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
“You see, you have just asked the primary question re this whole process, ie,
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE ? ”
My comment quoted here was and is Issue Specific, ie,
what is missing from public knowledge in the HCR tumultuous controversy.
THAT IS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM THAT I SEE.
If someone was pushing on me a business proposal in this fashion
my prompt and immediate response would be: XXX
And at bottom this is all about $$$ (regardless of who are the beneficiaries)
and if that ain’t business, what is ?!
January 28th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
This is a loaded statement. It seems sound on its face, and it no doubt works cleanly in simple situations, but is it universally applicable, especially for complex situations? I don’t think so. What is truth, after all? And how do you recognize it when you see it? What if something is true, but there’s also a bigger, better and different truth too?
This video is well worth watching: Class Day Lecture 2009: The Uniqueness of Humans. Its a general interest lecture (not offputtingly technical) by Sapolsky to a Stanford student assembly. Its about 38 minutes long. The payoff for my purposes here comes at around minute 34, so you can skip ahead if you’re in a rush. But, unless you’ve been keeping up with modern primateology and neuroscience, it might not make much sense without watching what came before. (there is an interesting but eminently skipable 5 minute introduction though)
I found the conclusion of the talk surprising and provocative.
And, since the issue is raised, our government is not a business, was not conceived of as a business, and can not work as a business. It is a major categorical error to confuse government with a business.
January 28th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
The discussion here, M M , it appears to me is not about government but specifically about health care and how to fund the cost which in serious cases are beyond the financial ability of most individuals.
Health care in America IS business. Where do YOU live ?
( another tangential departure, seems to me . . .
January 28th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
It is a major categorical error to confuse government with a business.- M M
Please convey your important pronouncement to the Supreme Cpurt of the United States. It appears they may not agree with your idea.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:55 am
The topic was health care reform, not health care. What needs reforming here? Certainly not the commercial enterprises engaged in the health care business which are doing quite well. Better than well.
What is to be reformed is the failure of those enterprises to serve the commonwealth. Since ancient times “commonwealth” (e.g. res publica in Cicero (from which the word “republic” is derived, by the way)) has been understood to mean the concern of the people or, in a word, government.
As for SCOTUS, they agree with me, they just don’t care.