Health care's diminished noise machine

Given that the health care "debate" on the blow dry shows has been dominated by conservative voices predicting the dire future awaiting us if "government run" health care is passed, it is tempting to wonder if the right wing noise machine has begun to seem like so much white noise to many Americans.

The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Republicans in Congress have fiercely criticized the proposal as an unneeded expansion of government that might evolve into a system of nationalized health coverage and lead to the rationing of care.

But in the poll, the proposal received broad bipartisan backing, with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats.

The poll, of 895 adults, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Though this is somewhat ominous.

It is not clear how fully the public understands the complexities of the government plan proposal, and the poll results indicate that those who said they were following the debate were somewhat less supportive.

But they clearly indicate growing confidence in the government’s ability to manage health care. Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent.

Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade. Nearly 6 in 10 said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all were insured, with 4 in 10 willing to pay as much as $500 more a year.

And a plurality, 48 percent, said they supported a requirement that all Americans have health insurance so long as public subsidies were offered to those who could not afford it. Thirty-eight percent said they were opposed.

In a follow-up interview, Matt Flurkey, 56, a public plan supporter from Plymouth, Minn., said he could accept that the quality of his care might diminish if coverage was universal. “Even though it might not be quite as good as what we get now,” he said, “I think the government should run health care. Far too many people are being denied now, and costs would be lower.”

While the survey results depict a nation desperate for change, it also reveals a deep wariness of the possible consequences. Half to two-thirds of respondents said they worried that if the government guaranteed health coverage, they would see declines in the quality of their own care and in their ability to choose doctors and get needed treatment.

“It is the responsibility of the government to guarantee insurance for all,” said Juanita Lomaz, a 65-year-old office worker from Bakersfield, Calif. “But my care will get worse because they’ll have to limit care in order to cover everyone.”

So is the current campaign to liken a public plan to...France...working, albeit not as efficiently as in the past? Or, as I suspect, is it having its effect, but have people also begun to digest the fact that spending on health care is drowning us and that the need is so great only the federal government can begin to make a difference?

Of course, as Bob Somerby relentlessly points out, consistently left out of the debate is the fact that the U.S. spends nearly double per capita on health care what every other developed country spends (excluding Luxemburg!) and by all metrics our care is no better, oftentimes worse. If that were ever permitted to be uttered on the teevee when Graham or McCain (and what is it with the neocon opposition to universal health care?) declare that Americans have the best health care system in the world, na na ni na, na, perhaps the public support would be...universal.