How incoherent was the Nov. 6 election result? Try this. A 54% majority now does not think that it is the government’s responsibility to make sure that all Americans have healthcare coverage. But a smaller majority just backed the president who rammed a one-size-fits-all healthcare regime through into law. A larger majority than either of these (56%) opposed ObamaCare when it was passed.
For the first time in Gallup trends since 2000, a majority of Americans say it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage. Prior to 2009, a majority always felt the government should ensure healthcare coverage for all, though Americans’ views have become more divided in recent years.
The current results are based on Gallup’s annual Health and Healthcare poll, conducted Nov. 15-18 this year.
The shift away from the view that the government should ensure healthcare coverage for all began shortly after President Barack Obama’s election and has continued the past several years during the discussions and ultimate passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010. Americans are divided on that legislation today — 48% approve and 45% disapprove — as they have been over the last several years.
Republicans, including Republican-leaning independents, are mostly responsible for the drop since 2007 in Americans’ support for government ensuring universal health coverage. In 2007, 38% of Republicans thought the government should do so; now, 12% do. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners there has been a much smaller drop, from 81% saying the government should make sure all Americans are covered in 2007 to 71% now.
So, about 71% of Democrats subscribe to socializing healthcare coverage, and the rest of us are forced to go along with them, despite the fact that a majority oppose what the Democrats believe in and do.
The left still doesn’t hold anything like a majority on its long-term goal:
One thing that has not changed is that Americans still widely prefer a system based on private insurance to one run by the government. Currently, 57% prefer a private system and 36% a government-run system, essentially the same as in 2010 and 2011. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the percentage of Americans in favor of a government-run system ranged from 32% to 41%.
But thanks to unpopular ObamaCare, we’re bound to get to the left’s long-term goal anyway.
If 48% approve of Obamacare and 45% disapprove along with 57% prefer a private system I guess I have a different opinion of what the number say than does the poster of the article.
The majority numbers are 48% approve of Obamacare and 57% prefer an private (healthcare) system. If I’m not mistaken most americans will keep their existing employer provided options of benefits, the disabled and retired will retain their existing form of medicare, medicaid and VA will still be in existence. Added to the equation via the new Obamacare will a ‘basket’ of private healthcare insurance companies from which those who don’t have insurance or those not included in an employer option can purchase from and or under certain financial criteria, recieve a government subsidy to purchase.
Seems the nations healthcare options represent the majority polling numbers whether we some of us like some of its the mechanics or not. A majorityn 48% like Obamacare. A majority 57% want a private healthcare system which I assume, means provided by private sector insurance comapnies.
Am I wrong?
Sorry I didn’t edit my comment and its a bit rough to read.
Could it be that 48% approve of the beautiful language and selling of Obamacare while a larger number don’t want the government involved? After all, it’s possible enough are not paying sufficient attention and all they have heard about are the goodies (stay on parents’ policy, no pre-existing conditions, etc.). And we all know voters vote for goodies.
#1 Zeke
As I understand it from talking to small businessmen I know who are in the act of shutting down their businesses because of both the upcoming tax increases AND Obamacare:
most americans will keep their existing employer provided options of benefits
Most employer provided plans are a result of trade-offs of financially affordable costs -v- benefits provided. The Obamacare plan a)sets absolute standards of what is mandatory coverage [that includes families] that are far above what most plans provide, and which cost more than can be borne. Case in point: a minimum wage person makes about $15-16K a year assuming working 50 weeks a year [some states have higher minimum wages]. The insurance plan can cost the employer $12-15K a year. Plus, the employee has their premiums to pay on top of that. That may well be more than the employee is marginally worth to the employer [keep in mind that employers have mandated taxes and premiums they must pay that the employee does not even see, before medical insurance].
If the employer fails to provide insurance at all, they pay a $3K fine per employee. If the employer reduces the number of hours worked to less than 30 per week, the employer is off the hook. If the employer drops all insurance coverage, they are not hit as bad. However, the employee and family is still mandated to have insurance coverage, and is fined $2K a year for each family member. Tell me how that improves the status of everybody; fewer jobs, less money for families. This incentivises employers to cut hours or all insurance.
the disabled and retired will retain their existing form of medicare, medicaid and VA will still be in existence.
The new system is partially funded by diverting $.75 TRILLION from the Medicare program. Doctors already do not get paid what it costs to treat Medicare patients, because the rules and compensation changes at bureaucratic whim and it can take up to a year to get paid. Most doctors lose money for their practices on their Medicare patients.
The new system further reduces rates paid for Medicare patients, requires bureaucratic approval for treatments, and removes the doctors’ professional ability to decide what is needed.
In my county, doctors are stopping taking new patients over 35 because they plan to be retired before the patients are on Medicare. Doctors do not have to take Medicare, and if patients cannot find doctors no insurance in the world is worth anything.
The “exchanges” do not exist. Not one. The fines and taxes do as of January 1. The subsidies are at bureaucratic whim. And incidentally, the government and Congress exempted themselves and their political supporters from the law. Yeah, that’s a good sign.
Subotai Bahadur
Thanks for your comments. As a very long time direct and indirect employer I have some understanding of all cost liabilities of employees and the bureaucracy associated. That said, I’m not and advocate of either employer or government provided healthcare (or retirement) except in the case of veterans. The reasoning? The use of third party healthcare providers (insurance companies) facilitate spiraling inflated costs for the services provided. Doctors, hospitals and pharma’s arbitrairly inflate costs and insurance companies have no skin in the game thus, simply pass the inflated costs along to employers and employees. They control their profits by dictating what can be covered, and of course what the market will bare by employers and employees.
Only in the most rural areas of america do doctors practice according to their oaths. The overwhelming majority of private sector doctors today practice medicine for wealth.
Anyway, our nations healthcare systems, insurance companies included, are corrupted like everything else and in need of shock treatment.
Well other than that, what could go wrong?
Yeah, being sarcastic – but I agree.
The law of unintended consequences is about to kick into effect and the most ardent supporters of Obamacare are going to be the ones hardest hit by it.
This, in turn, is going to lead for calls by the usual suspects for the federal government to subsidize these people – in short, for the working taxpayers to pick up the tab of those who suddenly find their unicorn fart powered healthcare benefits to be too expensive to afford.
If the republicans had a lick of sense they’d block any additional funding by the federal government for subsidies and let them squeal.
After the betrayal of Chief Betrayer John Roberts, an intense amount of pain is the only thing that is going to get through the noggins of these people and change the status quo to something mathematically feasable.
“If the republicans had a lick of sense…”
And if my grandma had wheels she’d be a wagon.
If they don’t have insurance, then YOU and I pay more for our healthcare. I understand the Conservative mind is a waste of good electrons, but even the dipshits like YOU should be able to determine the economics of massive numbers of your freinds, family, and neighbors going to the emergency room for their treatment. I understand you hate yourselves, but at least try and be human.
Jumbo, first and most importantly, you’re not half as smart as you think you are, and we’re not half as stupid. In fact you appear to be mathematically and economically illiterate, besides being just plain rude. So let me help you out.
Government run healthcare is more expensive, less efficient and delivers poorer results than a private system. There is no evidence, at all, that millions upon millions of people were using emergency rooms as primary care facilities. There is ample evidence, on the other hand, that government regulation HAS been driving up the cost. Like all liberals you think that the way to solve the problem of government regulation is with more government regulation, which is insane. Also very, very stupid.
So Obamacare is the wrong solution to a problem that didn’t exist in the first place and which is creating a host of new problems on a daily basis.
And I know I just wasted five minutes typing this because if you were capable of understanding it you wouldn’t be a liberal in the first place.
Let’s see, some Obama voters are starting to catch a hint of a clue.
Too late.
Enjoy the next four years, idiots. You voted for it.
What people say they want doesn’t matter, what they VOTE for does. And these buffoons voted for Obama (or stayed home, which is functionally the same thing).