CONGRESS

Public Still Opposes Health Care Mandate

Linda Door, of Laguna Beach, Calif., protests against the Affordable Care Act. 
National Journal
Ronald Brownstein
March 26, 2012, 5:30 p.m.

Amer­ic­ans re­main over­whelm­ingly against re­quir­ing in­di­vidu­als to pur­chase health in­sur­ance, but they di­vide in half about the health care law that Pres­id­ent Obama signed in 2010, ac­cord­ing to the latest United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll.

The poll found sweep­ing op­pos­i­tion to the so-called in­di­vidu­al man­date, whose con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity the Su­preme Court is con­sid­er­ing. But it also found the na­tion split along over­lap­ping lines of par­tis­an­ship and race when re­spond­ents were asked about the im­pact of Obama’s health re­form law and its ef­fort to ex­pand cov­er­age to the un­in­sured. At the same time, the Re­pub­lic­an pro­pos­al to re­struc­ture Medi­care in­to a premi­um-sup­port or vouch­er sys­tem faces res­ist­ance as wide­spread as the in­di­vidu­al man­date.

The man­date on in­di­vidu­als to pur­chase in­sur­ance or pay a pen­alty, as in earli­er na­tion­al polls, re­mains an idea without any sig­ni­fic­ant con­stitu­ency. Over­all, when asked if “the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment should or should not be able to re­quire all Amer­ic­ans to ob­tain health in­sur­ance or else pay a fine,” just 28 per­cent of those sur­veyed said they sup­por­ted the man­date, while 66 per­cent op­posed it.

The man­date faced op­pos­i­tion even from a nar­row ma­jor­ity of non­white adults; al­most three-fifths of young people; and two-thirds of col­lege-edu­cated white wo­men””all pil­lars of the mod­ern Demo­crat­ic co­ali­tion. Even Demo­crats, by a 48 per­cent to 44 per­cent plur­al­ity, said they op­posed a man­date. Two-thirds of in­de­pend­ents re­jec­ted the idea, and op­pos­i­tion soared to nearly three-fourths among whites without a col­lege edu­ca­tion. Re­pub­lic­ans op­posed the idea by more than 15-to-1.

The United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll, con­duc­ted by Prin­ceton Sur­vey Re­search As­so­ci­ates In­ter­na­tion­al, sur­veyed 1,003 adults on March 22-25. It has a mar­gin of er­ror of plus or minus 3.6 per­cent­age points.

Ques­tions about the re­form law’s over­all im­pact split the coun­try more closely. Asked for their over­all as­sess­ment of the 2010 law, 43 per­cent of adults said they favored it, while 46 per­cent op­posed it.

Re­ac­tion di­verged along par­tis­an lines: While Demo­crats backed the law by 75 per­cent to 17 per­cent, Re­pub­lic­ans op­posed it by an even more lop­sided 86 per­cent to 6 per­cent. In­de­pend­ents split, with 45 per­cent op­pos­ing and 43 per­cent sup­port­ing.

The ra­cial di­vi­sion was equally vivid. Sixty-eight per­cent of non­white adults said they sup­por­ted the law, with only 18 per­cent op­posed. Among whites, just 33 per­cent ap­proved of the law, while 58 per­cent op­posed it.

White voters’ at­ti­tudes fis­sured fur­ther along edu­ca­tion­al lines. Al­though whites without a col­lege de­gree are un­in­sured at high­er rates than whites with ad­vanced edu­ca­tion, just 28 per­cent of non­col­lege whites said they favored the law, while 61 per­cent op­posed it. Work­ing-class white men and wo­men were equally du­bi­ous.

Col­lege-edu­cated whites were more sup­port­ive over­all, but with a sig­ni­fic­ant gender gap. Just 37 per­cent of col­lege-plus white men sup­por­ted the law, while 56 per­cent op­posed it. Col­lege-edu­cated white wo­men, usu­ally the white demo­graph­ic group most re­cept­ive to Demo­crats, were again more en­thu­si­ast­ic: 51 per­cent of them favored the law, while 46 per­cent op­posed it.

The coun­try di­vided sim­il­arly closely on an­oth­er ques­tion that asked about the law’s at­tempt to ex­pand cov­er­age to the un­in­sured. The ques­tion noted that fed­er­al es­tim­ates pro­ject the law would provide health in­sur­ance to 33 mil­lion of the 50 mil­lion Amer­ic­ans now without it at a cost of about $150 bil­lion. The ques­tion then asked re­spond­ents wheth­er Con­gress should re­peal the pro­gram be­cause it is un­af­ford­able “at a time of large budget de­fi­cits,” or keep it “be­cause it’s im­port­ant to re­duce the num­ber of Amer­ic­ans without health in­sur­ance.”

By 45 per­cent to 42 per­cent, re­spond­ents said that Con­gress should keep the pro­gram. Nearly four-fifths of Re­pub­lic­ans backed re­peal, while al­most three-fourths of Demo­crats wanted to main­tain the law. In­de­pend­ents, by 45 per­cent to 40 per­cent, sup­por­ted main­tain­ing the cov­er­age ex­pan­sion.

Once again, the ra­cial di­vide may be even more telling. Al­most two-thirds of minor­it­ies said that Con­gress should main­tain the law’s pro­vi­sions to ex­pand cov­er­age; by 49 per­cent to 38 per­cent, though, whites backed re­peal. Still, that’s a slightly bet­ter show­ing than the 33 per­cent of whites who favored the law over­all. Among whites, those without col­lege de­grees ac­coun­ted for all of the dif­fer­ence between the two ques­tions.

In a meas­ure of how dif­fi­cult it is to gen­er­ate sup­port for big change in al­most any dir­ec­tion on health care, the Medi­care re­struc­tur­ing at the cen­ter of the House GOP’s long-term budget plan fared as badly in the sur­vey as Obama’s in­di­vidu­al man­date. Asked what Medi­care should look like in the fu­ture, just 26 per­cent said it “should be changed to a sys­tem where the gov­ern­ment provides seni­ors with a fixed sum of money they could use either to pur­chase private health in­sur­ance or to pay the cost of re­main­ing in the cur­rent Medi­care pro­gram.” Fully 64 per­cent said “Medi­care should con­tin­ue as it is today, with the gov­ern­ment “¦ pay­ing doc­tors and hos­pit­als dir­ectly for the ser­vices they provide to seni­ors.”

Even a sol­id 56 per­cent to 30 per­cent ma­jor­ity of Re­pub­lic­ans pre­ferred the cur­rent sys­tem.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×