The next question is a bit tricky. It asked respondents if they favored or opposed providing access to affordable quality healthcare for all Americans even if it means raising taxes (tricky because in reality neither the Obama Plan nor the AHIP Plan guarantees this). 60% favored comprehensive universal health care (which only a Single-Payer plan can deliver) even if it resulted in higher taxes. 31% were opposed.
The next question is interesting, and the response to it fascinating: "Do you favor or oppose providing access to affordable quality healthcare for all Americans even if it means a major role for the federal government?” 71% favored a major government role versus 21% opposed. Once again this suggests that a third option in which the government financed a privately delivered healthcare system (Single-Payer) would have been warmly endorsed in this poll if the respondents had been offered that option.
By a 62% to 28% margin respondents rejected the notion that a public health insurance plan would be a big government bureaucracy that would increase costs to taxpayers.
The respondents to the survey hold a dim view of private insurance companies. 60% agreed with this statement:
Private health insurers will always find ways to put profits before people. That’s why we need an independent non-profit public health insurance plan that is not driven by making higher profits, in order to control costs and guarantee access to quality affordable health care.
Respondents were read 7 different names that could be used to describe "the public insurance plan option" and asked to rank each one on a scale of 0 to 5 based on how favorably disposed they felt to toward each name.
The choices were:
"A Public health insurance plan like Medicare"
"A public health insurance plan"
"A public health insurance option"
"A public health insurance option like Medicare"
"A non-profit public health insurance plan"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
2
2
