Political Animal
Blog
When the debate over health care policy began in earnest in 2009, the notion of an individual mandate wasn’t especially controversial. Republican policymakers — who’d come up with the idea in the first place — didn’t attack it, and the idea of Americans being required to carry insurance didn’t seem especially foreign or radical.
In time, obviously, that changed. What was once an area of bipartisan common ground quickly became the basis for hysterical attacks, and polls showed the mandate going from uncontroversial to widely hated.
Interestingly enough, as we get further from the hysteria, we also see support for the mandate returning to where it was when the debate began. Here’s a CNN/ORC International Poll released today, for example.
According to the poll, 52% of Americans favor mandatory health insurance, up from 44% in June. The survey indicates that 47% oppose the health insurance mandate, down from 54% in early summer.
“The health insurance mandate has gained most support since June among older Americans and among lower-income Americans,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “A majority of independents opposed the measure in June, but 52 percent of them now favor it.”
The usual caveats still apply, most notably the fact that one shouldn’t draw sweeping observations from one poll.
But if the CNN results accurately reflect a shift in public attitudes, I think Paul Krugman gets this right: “Since [the mandate is] the core of health reform, this basically means that proponents are slowly winning the argument. If we make it to actual full implementation, this reform will be irreversible.”
We’ll see what happens at the Supreme Court.
Facebook
Twitter
SteveT on November 14, 2011 5:31 PM:
According to the poll, 52% of Americans favor mandatory health insurance, up from 44% in June. The survey indicates that 47% oppose the health insurance mandate, down from 54% in early summer.
What morons!
Didn't anyone think to ask the obvious next question -- If you are opposed to the individual mandate, then why?
Are people opposed because the feel it is an unnecessary intrusion upon their "freedoms" by "big government"?
Or are people opposed because they don't want to be forced to support the predatory for-profit insurance corporations?
howard on November 14, 2011 5:42 PM:
dear lord, stevet, do we have to go through this again? like there were 60 votes for single payer? (hell, there weren't 50 votes in the senate for single payer.)
if you care about getting people out of the situation where a medical emergency can bankrupt them due to lack of coverage, then you live with the mandate as half a loaf and a starting point for future development.
if you're a purist who would rather lose than see millions of people benefit, you carry on about the profitability of insurance companies.
retr2327 on November 14, 2011 5:44 PM:
The interesting question is why the mandate is gaining popularity at this time. The most interesting theory (one of the bloggers at TNR, maybe Tim Noah) is that Romney's defense of the Romneycare mandate is slowly but surely making a dent in the opposition to the idea of a mandate in general.
Wouldn't that be a nice irony?
jjm on November 14, 2011 5:49 PM:
"The usual caveats still apply, most notably the fact that one shouldn’t draw sweeping observations from one poll." I would say yes one should, given the total GOP/Tea Party bias CNN has displayed of late.
bob h on November 15, 2011 7:14 AM:
If the Republican ward-heelers on the court nullify the law, Obama can probably turn it to his political advantage, and fit it in to a campaign theme of the people vs. the privileged.
JWMck on November 15, 2011 8:09 AM:
Blue Cross health insurance started in the 1930's as a non-profit. It's mission was to get affordable, one price coverage to everyone. No one was denied due to health condition. Boy Scouts held sign-up drives and it was essentially a civic duty to join and keep costs low. In the 1970's and 80's insurance companies saw an opportunity for profit by insuring only younger healthier people with no existing conditions. With this qualifier, they were able to offer premiums below Blue Cross and the health care cost spiral began. If everyone, young and old paid, our costs would once again be reasonable. I have used this arguement to support universal health care and have not had much kick back from repugs.
John Weiss on November 15, 2011 8:23 AM:
Medicare for all. What's the problem? Why make it complicated? Does you heart bleed for the insurance companies?