Obamacare

Does the Public Now Favor ObamaCare's Health Insurance Mandate?

|

A CNN poll released Monday contained an unexpected finding: A majority of respondents said they favored ObamaCare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance—a provision that has historically been deeply unpopular. A New York Times news analysis looking at how the mandate has affected the health law politically suggests one reason why the CNN poll might have produced the result it did:

Polls show that the individual mandate is unpopular. The Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks public opinion on the health measure, reported in March that 74 percent of Americans would keep, rather than repeal, the law's provision barring insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. But only 27 percent would keep the mandate. (A CNN poll released Monday found that 52 percent supported the mandate, up from 44 percent in June, though unlike Kaiser, CNN did not explain that failure to comply would result in a fine.)

It's possible that the CNN poll reveals a genuine shift in attitudes about the mandate; the same poll showed that just 44 percent of the public favored the mandate in June. But it seems more likely that the increase in support is a result of both the wording of the question and natural variation in polling results, and that the mandate isn't substially more popular now than it was a few months ago. We'll have a better idea as more polls are released. 

NEXT: OWS: Occupation or Infestation?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. People are cows and the longer this has sat the more complacent people have gotten about it. So it actually wouldn’t surprise me if polls started shifting.

    1. so are cows complacent & shifty ?

      1. Did a bug just fart?

          1. Okay I’ll brake it down for you since reading comprehension seems to be a problem. People were against the mandate at first and would have polled as such. As time has progressed and due to our general complacency that once a law is passed it isn’t going away (war on drugs, patriot act) people are less willing to oppose the mandate. Thus the polls shifting from against to for.

            Obviously I was making a simple cause-effect statement.

            1. much better. how’s my comprension now?

              1. That made me lol. Sorry I was an ass with the bug fart thing.

  2. Or not.

    A Gallup survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults found that 47 percent favor the repeal of healthcare reform, versus 42 percent who want the law kept in place. Eleven percent had no opinion.

    http://www.reuters.com/article…..BD20111116

  3. Who are these 42%? Have they no clue? No sense of history? Do they really believe that eating paint chips for breakfast is nutritious?

    Also, virtually no one on Team Red supported the law. While just about all on Team Blue cheered for it. But there’s really no difference in the parties, I’m told.

    1. “”Also, virtually no one on Team Red supported the law.””

      I think that’s because of partisan politics. If mandatory health insurance is so distasteful to the Rs, Romney wouldn’t be in the lead. The seemingly winning mantra on the right is repeal and REPLACE, not repeal and forget.

      Medicare part D, which came with a mandate of sorts, passed when the Rs held 2/3 of government.

      1. “I think that’s because of partisan politics.”

        Then you think wrongly.

        “If mandatory health insurance is so distasteful to the Rs, Romney wouldn’t be in the lead.”

        He isn’t. Romney 25% or so, not-Romney 75% or so. Romney is the anointed, not the desired.

        “repeal and REPLACE”

        Nothing wrong with that. It depends on what the replacement is. The current system is unsustainable.

        1. “”Then you think wrongly.””

          Really? Then why did they support mandates in 1993 and voted for Medicare part D which has a mandate, yet be against the mandate in the D legislation?

          “”Nothing wrong with that. It depends on what the replacement is. “”

          Sure, but it is understood by both sides that a mandate is necessary to make it work.

          Romney isn’t in the lead? Who are you trying kid?

          1. “why did they support mandates in 1993 and voted for Medicare part D which has a mandate”

            I suppose it is necessary to specify who is meant by “they”. If by “they” you mean the people who control the RP, then, yes, “they” support socialized medicine as much as the DP. However, there are pols in the RP, maybe even a majority, who do not support socialized medicine, something which cannot be said of the DP. It should also be noted that R voters punished the RP severely in the 2006 election for the RP’s big government ways and punished the RP again in 2008 for its crony-capitalism. When have D voters ever punished the DP for its statism? Never.

            “Romney isn’t in the lead? Who are you trying kid?”

            I’m not trying to kid anyone. The RP establishment wants a NE liberal without either political courage or a firm commitment to limited government, hence their attempt to anoint Romney. Most Rs don’t want Romney, which is why there is so much shuffling amongst the potential nominees, just as there was in 2008. Romney usually polls the highest, but he isn’t even close to having a 50% share. The anti-Romney vote is split amongst a herd of non-Romneys. When the field gets reduced to 3 or 4, Romney will probably lose his front runner position. If there were 50 different potential nominees and Romney was polling at 2%, would you still attach so much importance to Romney being in the lead?

            1. I’m not attaching any importance to his lead. I’m just saying if insurance mandates was so distasteful, he wouldn’t be in the lead at all. You, btw, claimed he wasn’t in the lead.

            2. And at no point have I said the Rs like him, just that he leads the polls.

              And my point on the current health care law and no R votes being partisan is that the Ds wanted to own it, shut the Rs out of the process, which the Rs didn’t like, and the partisan move by the Ds made the Rs give them a collective fuck you.

  4. 74 percent of Americans would keep, rather than repeal, the law’s provision barring insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. But only 27 percent would keep the mandate.

    100% of the people who disagree with the mandate but think insurance companies shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions have no idea how insurance works.

    They should either be educated to eliminate this ignorance (as I had to do with a friend of mine who is a DOCTOR), or simply never allowed to vote again.

  5. Holy Cow – A republican think tank (Heritage) suggested the individual mandate a few years ago. Candidate Obama opposed the mandate as bad for business and the middle class before coming around to support it now.

    The difference is usually about who is in power. They generally believe the same thing, but oppose it when they aren’t in power.

    1. Yep. Look at all the anti-war demonstrations when Bush was Prez.

      Obama gets elected, and the wars continue, but the protests stopped cold.

    2. “”Candidate Obama opposed the mandate as bad for business and the middle class before coming around to support it now””

      If you can solve the health care problem by mandating health insurance, you can solve the homeless problem by mandating homes.

    3. “”The difference is usually about who is in power. They generally believe the same thing, but oppose it when they aren’t in power.””

      Exactly.

      Partisan politics, how does it work?

  6. Eight days ago they conducted a poll on this issue in Ohio – it was during the election and it was called Issue 3. The mandate lost 66-34.

    1. they should have postponed the election until this week.

  7. We’ll have a better idea as more polls are released.

    Because, what, the standard-deviation of this particular issue is going to *change*?

    You could poll this issue ad infinitum, even amongst relatively similar sample cohorts – you’ll still get wide shifts in ‘opinion’ that have no real explanation. Why? because the mandate is *still just an idea*, and no one has the first clue what the impact is going to be for themselves in practice.

    Until it *actually exists*/is imposed, this data is about as useful as polling what people think the weather is going to be on May 22nd, 2019.

  8. As usual, the only polls that can be trusted, and even then only some of the time, are elections.

    Let’s see the poll of the people who want the HCRA repealed who are ferociously impatient to go to the polls in the next election. Including a bunch of uninformed non-voters in a poll with loaded questions, the results of which are ideologically spun is not helpful.

  9. Here’s an interesting site about the mandate issue.

    http://healthcarereform.procon…..eID=004182

  10. Nov. 23, 1993
    Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770).
    Sponsored by Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI) & 20 cosponsors (2-D, 18-R)

    “Subtitle F: Universal Coverage – Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.”

    They were for it, before they were against it.

    Huh, where have I heard that saying before.

    1. Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI)

      That’s all you need to know. Chafee was a Democrat who lived in the Republican Party, not even slightly representative of most Republicans, even in the Senate. Super anti-second amendment, pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-socialized medicine, voted against impeaching Clinton, hyper-environmentalist, opposed capital punishment.

      1. So explain the other 18 republican cosponsors.

      2. “& 20 cosponsors (2-D, 18-R)”

        The R cosponsors outnumber the D cosponsors 9 to 1.

        Plus the mandate was first brought up by the Heritage foundation in 1989.

        1. “The R cosponsors outnumber the D cosponsors 9 to 1.”

          Remember the context. Hillarycare was being pushed by the DP and the Chafee group was trying to push a more “moderate” alternative. Some of the Rs supporting the Chafee plan were doing so for tactical reasons. They wanted to simultaneously oppose Hillarycare and avoid being labelled obstructionist. Of course, the Ds wanted a complete government healthcare takeover so they stuck to backing Hillarycare, which was much more extreme.

          Certainly, the RP establishment has virtually the same political agenda as the DP as a whole. However, there is a sizable portion of the RP, I would argue a majority, that opposes an ever expanding government. That, at least, offers the hope that the current RP leadership could be ousted and replaced by people who will roll back the government. The same cannot be said of the DP. The DP is the party of big government and never even gives lip service to limiting its power.

          1. “”Remember the context.””

            Regardless of the context, they favored it. That’s all I’m saying.

            “”However, there is a sizable portion of the RP, I would argue a majority, that opposes an ever expanding government. “”

            They sure as hell didn’t when they held 2/3 of government not long ago.

            The party in power, likes to expand power. History is pretty soild on that.

          2. “”Remember the context.””

            Regardless of the context, they favored it. That’s all I’m saying.

            “”However, there is a sizable portion of the RP, I would argue a majority, that opposes an ever expanding government. “”

            They sure as hell didn’t when they held 2/3 of government not long ago.

            The party in power, likes to expand power. History is pretty soild on that.

  11. Besides appeal to personal attack is a big tool in the partisan’s warchest and doesn’t advance an argument.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.