Poll: Nearly half in Virginia oppose Obama’s plan for health-care reform
Published: October 13, 2009
Updated: October 14, 2009
Nearly half of Virginia voters oppose President Barack Obama's health-care initiative, according to a Richmond Times-Dispatch poll, which also shows his popularity here fading.
Forty-nine percent are against the Obama program, while 39 percent favor it and 12 percent are undecided.
The poll, conducted for The Times-Dispatch last Tuesday to Thursday by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, indicates eight in 10 voters fear that a defining feature of the Obama proposal -- a public option for health insurance -- will drive up their taxes.
Paired with findings that show Republicans ahead for the three statewide offices, the results reflect a political landscape that has quickly tilted to the GOP after a lengthy Democratic ascendancy in Virginia.
And in a possible sign of political repercussions for the state's Democratic U.S. senators, 49 percent say they would disapprove of Jim Webb and Mark R. Warner backing the Obama health-care package.
Webb has expressed some support for a government-supplied alternative to private insurance. Warner has yet to take a position but has urged a solution on health care that does not increase the deficit.
Obama, the first Democrat to carry the state for president since 1964, is now viewed favorably by 44 percent of Virginia voters. That's down from 49 percent last November. Obama's unfavorable rating remains 41 percent.
The Times-Dispatch Poll is based on phone interviews with 625 registered voters who say are likely to cast ballots Nov. 3. Results could vary 4 percentage points in either direction.
The poll was conducted in the run-up to this week's vote by the Senate Finance Committee on a health-care overhaul that does not include a public option. Neither Virginian is a member of the panel, whose vote is the next major obstacle for the Obama effort.
A closer look at the poll's findings:
- 57 percent oppose a public-option, government-run insurance program as part of health-care reform, while 30 favor it, and 13 percent are undecided.
- 48 percent oppose requiring all Americans to have health insurance, while 39 percent believe coverage should be mandatory. Thirteen percent are undecided.
- 81 percent say health-care reform will lead to higher taxes to cover its estimated 10-year, $1 trillion cost. Seven percent say the initiative will not push up taxes, and 12 percent are not sure.
- 52 percent believe health-care reform will result in the rationing of health care, while 29 percent think otherwise. Nineteen percent are not sure.
51 percent say health-care reform will force major cuts in Medicare, a federal program that provides health and medical service for seniors. Thirty-one percent say it will not cause reductions in Medicare, and 18 percent don't know.
Contact Jeff E. Schapiro at (804) 649-6814 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Leech, since you’re so smart and take your own polls and have your own set of facts ,I’ll just let you delude yourself into thinking a public option is the ONLY solution.And it’s not gonna cost anybody a dime.Decicit nuetral and all that.If you want to believe that ,I’ll sell you the Lee Bridge.
It ain’t gonna happen, deary.Obama CAN’T make it happen.
Wait and see.
just as expected dave you and your Allen friend could care less that currently 45 million have no healthcare, millions struggle to pay their premiums, millions go bankrupt in the process, and US companies can’t keep up with exploding costs. You and your friends see no problem whatsoever that a mere antitrust law change won’t fix. And poof healthcare companies will then shake in their boots and instantly reduce their premiums, wow what a visionary. We know you hate all forms of govt from Medicare to SS and see socialism lurking under evert table just like when Reagan called Medicare socialsim in the 60s.
Why do you keep making this a party politics issue? I’m not a republican, or a democrat. I have about as much loyalty to political parties as I have to a brand of toilet paper.
If Harry Reid wants to repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurers, I’m all for it. In fact I was just at lunch with a guy who IS a staunch republican (former George Allen staffer) and he and I both agreed this should be done.
Why is this not being done? Why do we have to consider thousands of pages of bureacracy and government micromanagement when there are simpler solutions that everyone agrees on?
Not to mention, about half of the people that oppose reform are self-centered old hicks on Medicare (aka Government-run healthcare) who don’t want the blacks or the mexicans to get access to medical services.
If you ask me, people on Medicare should be excluded from any poll.
So more than half suppor it? And more than 67% nationally support it?
Wait, do we have a representative democracy or a oligarchy? If Senators from states that don’t have any people (Montana, Maine, etc..) are going to oppose the American people on healthcare reform then maybe it’s time to stop calling ourselves a Republic or a “representative democracy.“ The people have spoken, we want it, let’s roll.
we should now all expect dave to be making a big fat contribution to the Harry Reid re-election campaign; in reality I expect him to post something nasty about Ds and Reid in response:
“In a rare appearance as a witness at a Senate hearing, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, on Wednesday told the Judiciary Committee that it should repeal a 1945 law that granted the insurance industry limited exemption to national antitrust laws by allowing states to regulate insurers.
The law, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, is often cited by Mr. Reid and other critics of the health insurance industry as a reason why coverage can be so expensive for many people. They say the law allows insurers to monopolize markets and fix prices in ways that are usually illegal.
Medicare and the Elderly
Lifestyle and Preventive Care
“Since 1945, the insurance industry has enjoyed exemption from federal antitrust laws because of the McCarran-Ferguson Act,” Mr. Reid said. “Pat McCarran, who was the senior senator from Nevada at the time, lent his name to this piece of legislation. Although we’re both Nevadans, I’m not sure what Pat McCarran had in mind when he pushed this bill. And if Pat were around today, he couldn’t be happy with the state of the insurance industry.”
“Providing an exemption for insurance companies to antitrust laws has been anticompetitive and damaging to the American economy,” Mr. Reid continued.
What I do disagree with is using this as a substitute for reform (which Rs will likely do) b/c even if R Senators go along with this call and it gains passage, which most of us doubt, it would take a decade to have any impact on healthcare premiums which is destroying this country and imho ought to be attached to any healthcare bill.
dave lets see all of the R Senators now line up behind Reid’s bill,lol
And you know it’s kind of nice to live in a country where humnas’ fundamental needs are met and homelessness is banned. You’ll find we have a pretty high tax rate; but we also have a decent GNP and average standard of living.
You mean humans’ fundamental needs are taken care of at the expense of other humans and their welfare. Please include that part in your description.
That GNP you’re referring to isn’t created by the government and it’s not theirs to seize and redistribute. GNP is an aggregate measurement of something created by individuals. I get so tired of hearing this argument that “we” are one of the wealthiest nations, and blah blah blah, how can we not take care of people with all the money “we” have.
Guess what - it’s not “our” wealth. Wealth is owned and created by individuals, countries don’t own anything and governments don’t create wealth, unless of course you are talking about a communist system. Despite the spelling, there is no “we’ in wealth.
“BTW Seniors on both sides oppose Obama taking $500 billion from Medicare to fund his public option, which is his main priority.He wants the federal government to control not only 1/5 of our nations economy, but peoples health care choices as well.
Who wants a trip to the Dr to be about as pleasant as a trip to DMV.
And how you gonna pay for it.Surely a ‘highly successful trial lawyer’ doesn’t believe the government can provide health insurance to 40/50 million new people with NO COST OR DEFICIT OR RATIONING.You don’t buy that do you?“
Let me count the number of deliberate lies in your post:
1.Seniors oppose h.c reform. Most near seniors(50-65) I know feel just the opposite. Many are trying to retire but can’t b/c of $2,000/mo in premiums that Rs support. Many want SS expanded to age 50 based upon actuarial premiums, not Medicare premiums understanding that that premium would be lower then currently,
2.It is a bald faced lie that you and your R crowd keep repeating that the Baucus plan takes $500 billion from Medicare. Just b/c you repeat it 100 times doesn’t make it true. The money would be taken from a tax break that Bush gave to his Pioneer friends at Medicare Advantage offered by Aetna, UNH and others who report 460% profits over the last 10 years. It won’t change the basic Medicare plans one bit just the cadillac suppliment to Medicare called Advantage. You know that but prefer simply lying about it to seniors.
3. We want govt to control h.c? No it is an OPTION. Precisely like your right to attend either a public university which is usually cheaper, or a private college like William and Mary.Statistically it is projected that 5% of the country might opt for that plan.
4. Ds have been honest and admit there is a cost unlike the McDonnell folks and their free lunch roads plan.
The Baucus plan has been scored at $890 billion over 10 years. The CBO has stated it is projected with its revenue stream and adjustments to Advantage to actually cut the deficit by 85 billion over ten years, but that is likely b/c it doesn’t kick in til 2014 which I object to.
5. Rationing??? What do you think the current system is? 46 million don’t have healthcare and resort to bake sales and car washes for healthcare why is that not rationing? Your employers H.R. Director chooses what healthcare plan. what prescription formularies you can use and often what diagnostic testing you can have. Ever hear of preauthorizing medical treatment and then being told you can’t have tha procedure b/c it is too costly? What is that if not current rationing by h.c companies.
The most important concern to me and I think most Americans is what will this do to cost. The reason Ds support a Public Option is b/c Medicare has 5% in Administrative costs vs 30% for h.c. companies, doen’t waste billions on Advertising expenses and most seniors love Medciare’s delivery system.
Unless the plan reduces premiums by at least 25% or more Americans will not be able to afford it. If H.C continues to double in cost every 10 years as currently, it will 1. Continue to make our US corporations less competitive and 2. Continue to bankrupt millions of families.
Anyone who thinks that w/o a public option suddenly h.c companies will reduce their premiums and make coverage more affordable VOLUNTARILY, is delusional. I have yet to see any proposed plan w/o a public option that reduces premiums, which imho makes it useless.
There is no free lunch but again think what it currently cost local govts every time an uninsurred patient shows up to the E.R.
I oppose the President’s plan, because it’s not socialized enough.
It’s hilarious to me that the word “socialist” is being bandied about, and there is so little substantive discussion about what a spectrum thing public vs. private is.
To people of Scandanavia and most of the rest of Europe, these accusations of “socialism” is leading some to say to America—“You obviously don’t know what Socialism is;“ and “Come to Sweden and see how public programs work. I’ll bet you’ll find that we are not on a highway to dictatorship. And you know it’s kind of nice to live in a country where humnas’ fundamental needs are met and homelessness is banned. You’ll find we have a pretty high tax rate; but we also have a decent GNP and average standard of living.
Radical.
Nice try ,leech.But try again.
Nobody is talking about medicare or SS, both of which are headed toward bankruptcy. BTW Seniors on both sides oppose Obama taking $500 billion from Medicare to fund his public option, which is his main priority.He wants the federal government to control not only 1/5 of our nations economy, but peoples health care choices as well.
Who wants a trip to the Dr to be about as pleasant as a trip to DMV.
And how you gonna pay for it.Surely a ‘highly successful trial lawyer’ doesn’t believe the government can provide health insurance to 40/50 million new people with NO COST OR DEFICIT OR RATIONING.You don’t buy that do you?
Everyone would agree to meaningful healthcare reform that would achieve the goals of lowering premiums, preventing denial of coverage,and provide a way for everyone to have coverage.
The ‘bill’, whichever one you want to talk about, DOES NOT achieve this.Read it(them).
You can insult Republicans all you like but that doesn’t change the fact that with A MAJORITY in both houses of Congress, your great leader CANNOT AND WILL NOT be able to deliver your much desired public option to people,like you apparently, who want something for nothing.And it won’t be the Republicans fault because the dems don’t need ONE Republican vote to pass the bill.Yet they can’t do it!!
Why? Because believe it or not, there are a few reasonable Democrats out there who understand that the vague proposals Obama has talked about so far are destined for failure,bankruptcy, and a degradation of our current healthcare delivery system.
Sure we need healthcare reform.Just not whats been proposed thus far.And a majority of informed Americans know this.
Advertisement