Political Hotsheet
May 13, 2009 2:02 PM

Americans Want Health Care Overhaul

(CBS)
Health care reform has been a priority for President Obama, who promised to make significant changes to the country’s health care system while campaigning for the presidency. It is also a high priority for Americans; in a CBS News/New York Times Poll conducted in April 2009, it was cited as the most important domestic issue facing the country other than the economy.

Most Americans think health care needs no less than a major overhaul. A late April CBS News/New York Times Poll found 49% of the public saying it had some good elements but needed fundamental changes, and another 38% felt there is so much wrong with it that it needs to be completely rebuilt. Just 12% thought it works pretty well and only minor changes are necessary. Americans have expressed similar views since the early 1990s, when the question was first asked by the CBS News Poll.

U.S. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM NEEDS:
(CBS News/New York Times Poll, April 2009)
12% Minor changes
49% Fundamental changes
38% Rebuilding

Criticism of the current health care system is non-partisan, shared by Republicans, Democrats and independents alike.

The lack of universal health care is considered the more serious problem. When asked to choose between lowering the cost of health care and providing heath insurance to those without it, an early April 2009 CBS News/New York Times Poll found 54% chose providing insurance to all as the more serious problem, and 40% chose keeping costs down. Perhaps because of the recession, the latter had increased since 2007, from 31%. Nearly six in 10 Americans were very concerned about future health care costs they might face.

(CBS)

U.S. health care priorities are viewed through a partisan lens; 57% of Republicans chose keeping costs down, and 69% of Democrats opted for providing insurance to those who don’t have it.

One of the more interesting findings in polling on health care is the gap between Americans’ assessments of the country’s health care system and their own health care. A CNN/Opinion Research Poll conducted in March 2009 found 52% of Americans saying they were satisfied with their own health care costs, including insurance premiums and other expenses. But when asked about health care costs in this country more generally, just 23% were satisfied. That gap in evaluations has occurred in many polls conducted on the subject over the years.

A CBS News/New York Times Poll conducted in 2007 found a similar trend in evaluations of health care cost and quality. Just 38% were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of health care in this country, but twice as many, 77%, were similarly satisfied with the quality of their own care. The data showed an even larger gap in assessments of the cost of health care (and the percentages were much lower); just 14% were satisfied with the cost of health care in the U.S., while 43% were satisfied with their own costs.

SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE IN U.S.
(CBS News/New York Times Poll, February 2007)
11% Very satisfied
27% Somewhat satisfied
29% Somewhat dissatisfied
28% Very dissatisfied
5% Don't know/No answer


SATISFACTION WITH OWN QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE
(CBS News/New York Times Poll, February 2007)
41% Very satisfied
36% Somewhat satisfied
8% Somewhat dissatisfied
12% Very dissatisfied
3% Don't know/No answer


SATISFACTION WITH COST OF HEALTH CARE IN U.S.
(CBS News/New York Times Poll, February 2007)
3% Very satisfied
11% Somewhat satisfied
22% Somewhat dissatisfied
59% Very dissatisfied
5% Don't know/No answer


SATISFACTION WITH OWN COST OF HEALTH CARE
(CBS News/New York Times Poll, February 2007)
20% Very satisfied
23% Somewhat satisfied
19% Somewhat dissatisfied
33% Very dissatisfied
5% Don't know/No answer

Americans have some doubts about the President’s ability to enact change on this issue. While an April 2009 CBS News/New York Times Poll found two thirds of the public saying it was likely President Obama would be able to bring about significant health care reform in his first term, just 16% thought it very likely. (This April poll was conducted before President Obama met with business leaders from the health care industry earlier this week and announced they would work to significantly lower health care costs.)

Few Americans expect change to come quickly to the health care system. Earlier this year, a CBS News/New York Times Poll asked the public how long they thought it would take the Obama Administration to make real progress on providing affordable health care to all Americans. 35% thought it would take a year or two, another 20% said four years, 18% thought it would take more than four years, and 22% thought he won't be able to.



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.
Tags:
health care ,
poll ,
cbs news poll ,
sarah dutton
Topics:
Poll Positions
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 30 Comments
by noloyalisti May 14, 2009 10:46 AM EDT
We need radical change to our system which means get the obstructionist insurance companies OUT. They won't go down easy because the pigs have been feeding at the public trough for so long.
Reply to this comment
by globalcoolin May 14, 2009 10:37 AM EDT
Overhaul? Overhaul?
It's misleading language. when you overhaul an engine it remains the same engine. Worn parts are REPLACED with identical part.
This is a confiscation! Redesign.
"What WORKS" for a person needing medical attention is one thing.
"What WORKS for the Government is another--and what "works" for Government is "WE CONTROL IT!"
If it don't work for people it works for government to tell people--"this is the best you can get!" (so shut up!).
Reply to this comment
by Trust_me_ May 14, 2009 10:27 AM EDT
This Man would roll over in his grave if he knew what we have become!


MURPHY, AUDIE L.

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, Company B 1 5th Infantry, 3d Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Holtzwihr France, 26 January 1945. Entered service at: Dallas, Tex. Birth: Hunt County, near Kingston, Tex. G.O. No.. 65, 9 August 1945. Citation 2d Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by 6 tanks and waves of infantry. 2d Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to prepared positions in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, 1 of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machinegun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from 3 sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate 2d Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued the single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. 2d Lt. Murphy's indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy's objective.
Reply to this comment
by SperrySphere May 14, 2009 10:24 AM EDT
We need a different health care system, that's certain( but we don't need the same government that has been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, then bankrupting Paul, and leaving Peter with a load on his shoulders) to do anything with health care. Our government is acting like a herd of sheep without a shepperd or a dog, and they are just wandering around aimless in a pile of money that will never reap any reward...please don't let these buffoons do anything with health care.
Reply to this comment
by Trust_me_ May 14, 2009 10:19 AM EDT
The polls are fixed to make idiots think it is ok to be communists.
every body else says its ok, then it must be ok!
Reply to this comment
by Trust_me_ May 14, 2009 10:15 AM EDT
It's STILL the greatest country in the world....it's biggest problem now is a large group of its citizens....have to tell everyone "how bad the country is"....thinking they can get credit for "fixing" it............yeah....it's almost that simple....
Posted by whosaid1

There is nothing wrong with it if your communist!
Reply to this comment
by whosaid1 May 14, 2009 9:33 AM EDT
I really need someone to tell me how the United States of America got to be in the condition it's in. A country that is supposed to be the greatest country in the world. Please, someone explain it to me. Did everybody just kinda close their eyes while it was happening?
Posted by erasmus111

It's STILL the greatest country in the world....it's biggest problem now is a large group of its citizens....have to tell everyone "how bad the country is"....thinking they can get credit for "fixing" it............yeah....it's almost that simple....
Reply to this comment
by whosaid1 May 14, 2009 9:26 AM EDT
Maddow quotes the response from Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a poli-sci professor from Princeton:

The terms "welfare," "food stamps," and "reparations" are all code words for "undeserving black people."

Really .....! So Ms Harris-Lacewell, KNOWS that every person who use "those" three terms are racist....Just what we need another liberal to tell us what "we really said"
Reply to this comment
by rednomo May 14, 2009 8:57 AM EDT
On average, the same number of Americans who were killed on September 11 will die from cancer over the next two days. 40,000 people this month; more than half a million throughout the course of the year.

Your chances of being killed at the hands of a terrorist, on the other hand, are comparatively remote. Some estimates show the odds at one in 9.3 million.

Do ANYTHING to prevent terrorism, do NOTHING for health care - BRILLANT!

You sheep spook so easily,

GLOBAL PANDEMIC!!

Maybe that will help?
Reply to this comment
by rednomo May 14, 2009 8:44 AM EDT
It's amazin' how the chickens keep clucking for the Colonel. All Rush cares about is Rush, protecting his tax cuts and wealth along with the other richest 2% of this country. And the wing nuts, who he would not p!ss on if they were on fire, line up to support his agenda against their own self-interest. Like someone pointed out on this site, "it's like the chickens cheering for Colonel Sanders."

Here's a good example - read carefully and you will realize that Rush is very concerned about his Wealth and knows just the right button to push with the wing-nuts, race:

The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state. And the objective is to take the nation's wealth and return it to the nation's 'rightful owners.' Think reparation. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what is actually going on.

Limbaugh has in fact pitched this line frequently already, minus the "reparations" line:

So I think we've got a guy -- I think the best way to understand Obama -- and I can't say this enough -- he really believes it his job to return the nation's wealth to its rightful -- quote unquote, rightful owners. And that means he believes the people who have wealth have stolen it, from those who have no wealth. It's been unfair achieved and accrued. And it's his job to take it and redistribute it. And that's what he means by sacrifice. When he talks about sacrifice, he's talking about raising your taxes, taking your assets, and giving them to other people who he thinks you stole them from, who are thus more deserving.

Maddow quotes the response from Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a poli-sci professor from Princeton:

The terms "welfare," "food stamps," and "reparations" are all code words for "undeserving black people." ... Limbaugh is attempting to use the politics of racial fear to appeal to the lowest common denominator of racial anxiety in this country. ... Clearly, Rush is not saying anything that even vaguely, substantively true. He is simply screaming, "There is a black man in the White House! Be very afraid!"
Reply to this comment
by boosterprez1 May 13, 2009 10:19 PM EDT
If you knew of only one person that had no health care coverage and could not afford to pay for expensive procedures, and if that one person had a cancer that could be managed with very expensive procedures, and... if that one person was your mother, would your attitude change?

What's your answer?
Posted by iam4honesty

You biased the question the moment you included "if that one person was your mother".

Assuming your example is just a person of unknown origin to me, I would have to ask whether they fit the criteria of the 10.6 million in my post.

I know quite a few people who CAN afford health insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase it. I don't count them as uninsured. YOur example states that 'said person' has no health insurance, but you didn't mention WHY they don't have it, so I can't answer for you...sorry.

If they are illegal, my answer is "no".
If they can afford insurance, but make the choice not to purchase it, my answer is "no".
If they are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, but haven't signed up yet, my answer is "no".
If they already receive Medicaid or SCHIP, but call themselves "uninsured", my answer is "no".

Hope that clears up my "attitude".
Reply to this comment
by iam4honesty May 13, 2009 9:47 PM EDT
A single payer, 'universal' health care system would save taxpayers billions.
Reply to this comment
by iam4honesty May 13, 2009 9:43 PM EDT
When you hear ?46 million uninsured,? or ?1 in 6 Americans don?t have health insurance,? remember that this is technically correct but misleading. The more important question is, ?How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers??

What?s your answer?
Posted by boosterprez1 at 5:37 PM


If you knew of only one person that had no health care coverage and could not afford to pay for expensive procedures, and if that one person had a cancer that could be managed with very expensive procedures, and... if that one person was your mother, would your attitude change?

What's your answer?
Reply to this comment
by boosterprez1 May 13, 2009 8:37 PM EDT
First and foremost, we need some truthtelling about those "45.7 million uninsured in this country":

Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured. There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Another 4.3 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized government health insurance (again, either Medcaid or SCHIP), but have not yet signed up. While these people are not pre-enrolled in a health insurance program and are therefore counted as uninsured, if they were to go to an emergency room (or a free clinic), they would be automatically enrolled in that program by the provider after receiving medical care. There?s an interesting philosophical question that I will skip about whether they are, in fact, uninsured, if technically they are protected from risk.
Another 9.3 million are non-citizens. I cannot break that down into documented vs. undocumented citizens.
Another 10.1 million do not fit into any of the above categories, and they have incomes more than 3X the poverty level. For a single person that means their income exceeded $30,600 in 2007, when the median income for a single male was $33,200 and for a female, $21,000. For a family of four, if your income was more than 3X the poverty level in 2007, you had $62,000 of income or more, and you were above the national median.
Of the remaining 15.6 million uninsured, 5 million are adults between ages 18 and 34 and without kids.
The remaining 10.6 million do not fit into any of the above categories, so they are:
U.S. citizens;
with income below 300% of poverty;
not on or eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program;
and not a childless adult between age 18 and 34.

Should people with incomes near or above the national median get health insurance subsidized by taxpayers?
How about non-citizens? Should we distinguish between documented and undocumented non-citizens? Between those who pay taxes and those who do not? Remember that we are not talking about who should get emergency medical care, but instead who should get taxpayer subsidies to finance the purchase of pre-paid health insurance. Does that change your answer?
Many young adults and childless couples are in good to excellent health. Do they deserve subsidies, when they may be making what they believe to be a rational economic decision and using their financial resources for things other than buying health insurance? Should a 25-year old Yale graduate triathlete making $30K per year get his health insurance subsidized by taxpayers if he chooses not to buy it because his budget is tight?

I will make one value choice and boldly assert that, if you are already enrolled in or eligible for one free or heavily subsidized health insurance program, we can rule you out as needing a second. That simple statement reduces the 45.7 million number down to 35 million, by excluding the Medicaid undercount and Medicaid/SCHIP eligible from our potential target population.

I think most people would also say that the 10.6 million I have labeled as ?remaining uninsured? are the most sympathetic target population.


When you hear ?46 million uninsured,? or ?1 in 6 Americans don?t have health insurance,? remember that this is technically correct but misleading. The more important question is, ?How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers??

What?s your answer?
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 May 13, 2009 6:44 PM EDT
I really need someone to tell me how the United States of America got to be in the condition it's in. A country that is supposed to be the greatest country in the world. Please, someone explain it to me. Did everybody just kinda close their eyes while it was happening?
Reply to this comment
by whitemale08 May 13, 2009 6:32 PM EDT
Shut Down the HMO system and re-open the system under as a General Hospital type system where government and charities run the system.

Government already subidizes the university research, already subsidizes the margins for profit set in the emergency rooms

So let's have a fully funded government run system that takes the 'profit' motive out of it, especially since the 'profit' motive is what drove 'globalization' and that giant sucking sound of our jobs leaving this country.

If you Wall Street Republicans don't want to pay for health care then help STOP GLOBALIZITION!!!!!

UN-INSURED PEOPLE ARE VICTIMS OF BRITISH 'FREE TRADE' AND 'GLOBALIZATION'!

IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT!
Reply to this comment
by dfnj2009 May 13, 2009 5:59 PM EDT
Support choice and free markets: Support selling Medicaid to ALL Americans!!!
Reply to this comment
by bobbyduck1 May 13, 2009 5:54 PM EDT
It needs to be done by a independent group that knows what they are doing, not Pelosi, Reid, Geithner, and Obama. That would just lead to more waste of money.
Posted by specialty8 at 2:27 PM : May 13, 2009

Spoken like a true right-winger! The money they are "wasting" now is the bill that is due after the GOP started their power trip with Gingrich and Delay in the mid-90s, and continued until the end of the Bush veto. They brought us here, the current administration is fixing the mess, and all you neo-wacks are hollering because they can't completely clean up 13 years of mismanagement in a few months! Typical right wing BS!

So you prefer to wait and hope some real geniuses like Sarah Palin or John McSame or the some of the rest of the GOP nimrods will by some fairy tale miracle get elected?

This has to happen now or we lose the chance due to lost momentum. Given time, the health care insurance and health provider mega-corporations will find a way to buy or hire put-up scandal schemes against proponents to get their way out of this.
Reply to this comment
by specialty8 May 13, 2009 5:27 PM EDT
We do need reform on health care, but not controlled or shoved through congress on this bunch we have in office right now. We saw the results of the stimulis disaster that just had to be signed right now again today. It needs to be done by a independent group that knows what they are doing, not Pelosi, Reid, Geithner, and Obama. That would just lead to more waste of money.
Reply to this comment
by bobbyduck1 May 13, 2009 5:06 PM EDT
As an American living in Canada since 2000, I will adamantly support a single provider system (I.e. government paid) in the U.S.

Canada's system is not even the best, several Euurpean systems are better, but I still have FAR better health care than I did on the last two HMOs in the states. And I would still have it if I retire, change jobs, get broke, get laid off or have any other calamity strike.

Opposition to government-provided health care is based on ignorance, fear, greed and lust for power.

If the Health Insurance Industry can simply agree to limit inflation over the next decade and that will produce 2 TRILLION dollars in savings, how much are they pocketing now? Every cent of the money that flows into the health insurance industry is overhead / profit that is extracted from the overall cost of health care first, then what is left over can be divided among the profit-driven hospitals and medical clinics. With a little luck some smidgen is left over for actually providing health care. But not much!

True cuts will only happen when the taxpayer is footing all the bill and medicine is no longer profit-driven. For decades, excellent remedies have been buried in favour of more expensive, less effective drugs that make more profit. This will only change when those in charge seek to lower the costs instead of increase the profits. Sheesh, we'll probably even find cures for AIDS, Cancer and Heart Disease. There is no profit in having those cures now, the profit is in feeding patients years' worth of drug cocktails. If they were cured, the pharma-giants would lose all that profit!
Reply to this comment
See all 30 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER