by Deb Cupples | Apparently, most Americans want the freedom to choose to pay less for health insurance through a publicoption (as opposed to being forced to pay skyrocketing premiums to private insurance companies). A poll released in July by the Employee Benefit Research Institute indicates that "between 68 percent and 88 percent of Americans either strongly or
somewhat support health reform ideas such as national health plans, a
public plan option...."
Over the summer, some media outlets, pollsters and interest groups tried to create the impression that most Americans didn't want the freedom to choose to pay less for health insurance. Some outfits even fudged their polling data by changing survey questions yet comparing new polling results to older polling results based on surveys in which questions were phrased differently.
Whatever data-manipulation may or may not have occurred, an ABC-Washington Post poll released in late October indicates that 57% of Americans favor a public-insurance option [likely because a public option would be cheaper for us ordinary folks.]
Given that a majority of Americans seem to support a public option, congressional Democrats likely feel pressure to at least appear to support a public option.
At the same time, many Dem politicians (along with their Republican siblings) also feel pressure from the insurance industry (and other health-related industries) to make sure that a truly effective public option doesn't get passed by Congress.
Talk about a "rock and a hard place" -- the horns of a dilemma.
How could politicians handle such conflicting agendas as pleasing industry folks that donate heavily to their campaigns versus pleasing the millions of voters who put politicians in office?
I can think of a way that's easy as eating pie: go on record appearing to fight for a public option, while someone poisons health-care reform bills with a provision that many Dem voters would find repugnant (e.g., an anti-abortion provision).
If that was certain politicians' tactic, it seems to be working. Greg Sargent tells us that 41 House Dems have pledged to vote against any health-care reform bill that contains an anti-abortion provision.
If enough Dems have to choose between women's right to choose and a public-insurance option, ultimately there may not be enough Dems left to carry a pass a public option in the House.
That would be a win-win for some politicians. Their Dem supporters would likely stay loyal because the politicians 1) stood up for abortion rights, and 2) appeared to stand up for the public option. At the same time, some politicians' industry-connected donors would likely keep funneling money their way, because a solid public-option had been blocked.
Maybe I'm just in a hyper-cynical mood.
Incidentally, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ex-Dem turned Independent, who never seemed to miss a chance to suck up to ex-President Bush) has publicly stated that he will filibuster any health-care reform plan that contains a public option.No surprise there: Mr. Lieberman's congressional district includes Hartford, Connecticut -- which was for many years called the "Insurance capital of the world."
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:* Public Option Needed because Private Insurers are Robbing Us
* Poll Shows 77% Americans Support Public Option
* Are Polls and Media Misleading us re: Health Care Reform?* Insurance Companies Get Away with Overbilling Medicare
* Contractor Fraud: Driving up Healthcare Costs?
.
Comments