Stark Partisan Divide in Health Care Goals

5192097President Barack Obama would like to make bipartisanship in Washington a central element of his presidency -- but when it comes to health care reform, Americans themselves have yet to reach much bipartisan consensus.

The latest CBS News/New York Times Poll reveals large partisan divides on some central questions in the current health care reform debate.

Democrats and Republicans don't share the same health care priorities: 70 percent of Republicans think keeping health care costs down is more important, while 71 percent of Democrats think covering the uninsured is the higher priority.

Importantly, the two sides disagree about the role government should play in providing health care. Just 31 percent of Republicans think the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, compared to 76 percent of Democrats. And only 38 percent of Republicans think Americans should be required to have health insurance -- but 71 percent of Democrats take that view.

There is also disagreement as to whether it is possible to provide health care coverage for most Americans without increasing the federal budget deficit – 63 percent of Republicans think that is not possible, but 51 percent of Democrats think it is.

Most Republicans think any savings realized from health care reform would not cover the costs of enacting reform, while most Democrats think those savings would do so.

The two sides even disagree on the timing of reform. A majority of Republicans (55 percent) think that given the state of the economy, the U.S. cannot afford to tackle health care now, while 64 percent of Democrats view fixing the health care system as an important part of solving the country's economic problems.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: WHERE THEY DIFFER

	REPUBLICANS	DEMOCRATS
Keeping costs down is more important	70%	26%
Covering uninsured is more important	26%	71%
Government should guarantee health insurance	31%	76%
Government should not guarantee insurance	59%	19%
Government should require all to be insured	38%	71%
Governemnt should not require insurance	55%	27%
Possible to reform health care without raising deficit	34%	57%
Not possible	63%	43%
Because of economy, cannot afford reform now	39%	64%
To fix economy, must reform health care now	55%	35%

Partisan disagreement on health care is not new. In 1993, when health care reform was last seriously proposed, there was less disagreement in some areas.

Fewer Republicans than Democrats supported a government role in providing health care, but support among Republicans was higher in 1993 than it is now. In a September 1993 CBS News/New York Times Poll, 52 percent of Republicans thought government should guarantee medical care for everyone without insurance, as did 73 percent of Democrats.

But even then, there was partisan disagreement: according to a February 1994 CBS News/New York Times Poll, most Republicans (60 percent) felt the health care reform plan proposed by President Bill Clinton was unfair to them, while most Democrats saw it as fair (51 percent). Republicans saw the reform bill as making health care in the U.S. worse, while more Democrats saw it as an improvement.

But there are some areas in which many on both sides of the aisle currently do agree. In the latest poll, majorities see the health care system in the U.S. as needing major overhaul: 70 percent of Republicans and 93 percent of Democrats think the health care system needs fundamental changes or to be completely rebuilt (although more Democrats than Republicans see the need to completely rebuild it).

Majorities of Republicans and Democrats also agree that health insurance companies should be required to cover anyone who applies, regardless of whether they have a pre-existing condition (more Democrats than Republicans take this view too).

Most Republicans and Democrats think rising health care costs pose a serious threat to the country's economy, and majorities think that the legislation under consideration in Congress would raise the cost of health care for most Americans.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: WHERE THEY AGREE

	REPUBLICANS	DEMOCRATS
U.S. health care system needs:
Minor changes	28%	6%
Fundamental changes	55%	51%
To be rebuilt	15%	42%
Require insurance companies to cover anyone	62%	90%
Rising costs pose serious threat to economy	72%	80%
Current legislation would increase costs for most Americans	71%	55%
Democrats should pass bill with Republicans	82%	72%

Large percentages on both sides of the partisan divide would like to see Congress try to pass a bipartisan health care reform bill – 82 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Democrats. But the differences in how each side defines reform, particularly the role of government in health care, could pose a threat to a bipartisan solution.

Sarah Dutton is the CBS News director of surveys. Poll Positions is weekly Hotsheet feature on polling trends from the CBS News Survey and Polling Unit. Click here for more posts from the series.

[diamruby]

We do need to make sure that any health bill passed does not have any religious organizations mandated restrictions such as the one they want on abortions. If they put that wording into the laws then I want a law to restrict my tax dollars paying for all the welfare babies being born & I want my tax dollars to pay for the mandatory sterilization of all welfare recipients. You do not have the right to impose your religous beliefs on any one but yourself. Also I do not like the fact that you rake in billions of tax free dollars every year but you feel that is your right, well I believe it is my right to have an abortion & the health insurance that I pay for should pay for it whether it is private or public health insurance.

[karenbe111]

If Republicans were actually interested in keeping costs down, they would be supporting a single-payer system. What they are really interested in is protecting the insurance companies' profits. What hypocrits!

[truechangewecansee]

I am an independent voter who does not believe either party currently represents me. That being said, this "debate on health care" has turned into a pi**ing match. It reminds me of two siblings in the back seat of a care yelling "Mommy, he just touched me". Grow up people, politicians are in this for the power and that is exactly what this legislation will give them, power over your decisions. You want a prime example of 10 years down the road, look at the VA health system.

If you want true reform, do these three things.
1)Tort reform -the frivolous law suits are driving malpractice up and that just gets passed along to us the consumers.
2) Let Medicare fund the people unable to get insurance without creating a new "government" agency. (which after removing the illegals and those who don't want to pay for insurance is closer to 15 million, not 50 million)
3)Allow insurance companies to insure is individually (like car or life insurance) and make it portable (we can take it with us wherever we go). If I choose to eat unhealthy food, not exercise, and smoke, then I will pay for it not you.

The answer is simple, but to follow that path takes power away from the "Elitist" in both parties.

Can't you see this (and the other nonsense like ?Climate change") has turned neighbor on neighbor.

Stop the fighting (and name calling) and come up with solutions or you become part of the problem.

[mumma11]

It's so many of the "How" parts of reform that really shows the ideological differences, and makes people angry.
Ask 1) Should medical malpractice tort reform be part of the package?
2) Should healthcare costs be subsidized by the government for more people than just Seniors? Is so, should illegal aliens be entitled too?
3)If lifestyles should included in determining the availablity of government subsidized healthcare, which ones should be in, and which ones should be out: Smoking? Obesity? Recreational pregnancies? Recreational erectile dysfunction? HIV/AIDS?

[quidam56]

HHS had an interesting town hall meeting this afternoon. Their health care reform ideas are brilliant and hopefully America will be better off when a bill is put together and passed. I hope everyone will just relax, listen and study the facts then make up your own mind as to what is the truth and what is a myth. People need to think for themselves rather than listening to comedians and commentators on any news or radio program. If you really want to get the best news, BBC America does a better job than CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC or CBS. Google HHS and read for yourself what their goals are. If you are one of the 187 million who already have health care insurance and are happy with it, keep it. You don't have to do anything but pay more every year for the insurance and pay more in those deductibles. If you have Medicaid or Medicare, nothing is going to change except you may see more efficiency in paper work and quality of care. If you aren't happy with what you have take a look at the public option, it's your choice. Having competition will most likely cut double digit increases every year in those health care insurance premiums to lobby congress with your money, not to pay for your health care, plus if you loose your job, or have a pre existing condition those rich insurance companies can no longer drop your coverage or deny you health care when you need it most. In other words, they can't ration your health care anymore if a bill gets passed. Rick Boucher voted no on HCR because he's worried about hospital survival. He is well aware of the acceptable standards of health care in this rural area and is more concerned about the big corporate profit machine surviving than you, his constituents. I don't think he is in touch with health care reform at all because reform will help hospitals cut costs to help them survive. It may even weed out those who shouldn't even be in business all across America. Hospital acquired infection is a problem that needed addressed many years ago and is being ignored to this day even by Governor Bredesen, Governor Kaine and Congressman Boucher. It will save money but more importantly it will save lives, but the status quo is just fine the way it is in VA and TN, according to the politicians. When I worked in health care, I wasn't there to make the insurance industry or the hospital wealthy, I was there to help a patient get healthy. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 It's sad to see what happened to what used to be the best health care in the world. To me, no no no and no choice is not an option, we need reform now.

[thusspokezara]

"Obama would like to make bipartisanship a central element of his presidency" Who fed her this lie? If this is true, then why did he choose Rham Goebbels Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff?

[piBen11]

I am afraid, a single payer system may not be the right solution for the problem that we face in the healthcare system. Obvious drawbacks of a single payer system are:
1. Lack of Invovations
2. Bureaucracy - laziness or ineffectiveness
3. Rationing
4. Autocracy
Above all, a single payer system will produce lack of the interactions of demand and supply forces to determine more accurate allocation of scare resources. In fact, a single payer system is anti market, and would create lots of inconveniences than benefits. Economists have long known that the market system is the best system to allocate scare resources through price in any economy, so it will be a big mistake to employ a single payer system in this country. Of course, that doesnot mean that the reform should not include a "public option" as one of the alternatives or players in the market. As a matter of fact, I strongly support the inclusion of a strong public option as one of the players of the insurance sector of the economy. Clearly, the pulic option is the only thing that will bring price dicipline and efficiency in the healthcare markets. Though some have argued that a public option will end up subsuming the rest of its competitors, that will only be true if the public option is the most efficent player in the market.
Unfortunately, these same individuals have also argued that the Federal Government is too bureaucratic and inefficient in performing any service, why then do they think that public option will crowd out the competition? In a supervised competitive market, only the efficient and innovative competitors survive, the lazy or bureaucratic ones will fall on the way side very quickly so long as all competitors play by the same set of rules. So, if the public option is not the most efficient and innovative alternative, the claim that it will crowd out the other competitors is absolutely false. The public option will only succeed in crowding out its competitors only if it is the most efficient competitor in the market. That is, it is the alternative that provides the most services for the least costs. And for it to do that, it has to be the most innovative alternative in the market. Is that not what we want? I would like to think so.

[busybeela]

Dems Assault Obamacare Opponents at Tampa Bay Town Hall
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33059

[mattcat25]

People(Republicans) that oppose improving the HealthCare System, Effecitve overall Health, and Productivity of the American Working Class are SICK!

[piBen11]

It is unfortunate that most of those people who seem to be against the healthcare reform are either uneducated or partially educated older men and women who are easily confused or inductrinated by the current benefactors of the failed healthcare system. These benefactors, such as the insurance corporations and hospitals disseminate bogus information about the reform and are able to convince a lot of these older and not so well educated citizens who, in the first place, do not trust the Government to do anything right - even though, these older citizens depend on the Federal Government for their various social needs including healthcare services. Further more, these older citizens tend to think and are convinced without a doubt that what they have now will be taken away from them by the reform. Of course, the insurance Corporations and the Hospitals Associations have succeeded in inculcating this rubish in the unfortunate ill informed groups. Moreso, these older and not so well educated citizens are often characterized by their reluctance or steep resistance to updated information, so it is often quite difficult to convince them otherwise when they have coasted in one particular direction in any issue. It is a profound shame that in this day and age we still have such groups that are easily manipulated by such blatantlies.

[starleo146]

They (The Insurance companies) are so scared it may go through they and the right wing and every and any lobbyist are bent on destroying this Bill. It is something how Glenn Beck got all those right wingers out in Tampa I wonder why they do not get arrested for disturbing the peace and disruption of a town hall meeting. They are a total disgrace to this country and the public option is what has them so scared it would be competition for the Insurance companies and would bring the price of health care down and heaven forbid the price should come down. This is all a repetition of the Bush Gore election, same people same disruption of a vote count, If they are allowed to get away with this what will be next. How dare they call the president Hitler they are practicing Hitler ways. This is not democracy they are fighting democracy and something bad is going to happen before the end of August I fear.

[the_majesty]

As always the democrats want something for nothing and they want the republicans to pay for it. This has to come to an end. Republican should by all legal meams, postpone paying any taxes as long as possible.

[jon2012-2009]

I think the rationale for health care reform should be economic: the current private health insurance system in the U.S. is wasteful, creating an economic penalty of $1 trillion a year over what we should be spending if our costs were in line with other developed countries.

The only way for our health care costs to be manageable is to follow a proven model: a single-payer government-run system that covers all. There is no other known way to deliver cost-effective health care. Why can't a system that has proved so successful in the rest of the developed world be unsuitable for the U.S.? Those who oppose reform can't explain this.

Tweaking the system to achieve small efficiencies will not make it. In any case, a public option does not rule out other reforms. But it is a big step in the right direction. Without a public option, we are doomed to see the relentless toll on our economy and living standards of the last 50 years of private health insurance.

Let's do what's right for us, not what's good for private health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

[jon2012-2009]

by the_majesty August 7, 2009 11:16 AM EDT
As always the democrats want something for nothing......
---------------

Do you know what you're talking about? This is a matter of economic survival, not one group of Americans dipping into the pockets of another. Have you seen anything like that happening in Canada, France, UK, Germany, etc.? They have similar systems, no one gets something for free, not in any meaningful sense that isn't also happening in any other system.

But the unvarnished truth about a public option is that it cuts health care costs as much as 50%, an economic windfall that will benefit every American and every business, large or small, in America.

The feature some Republicans may not like is that of universal coverage because it comes with the package. So you cut your nose to spite your face? Lelt's do this for ourselves. Today.