Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 4:42 PM ET, 11/29/2010

No mandate for repeal of health law, part 973

By Greg Sargent

The new McClatchy-Marist poll does us all a public service and asks Americans whether they want specific provisions of the health reform law repealed. Guess what -- they don't want that at all:

When it comes to the part of the law that allows children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance, 68% think it should remain law while 29% say that dimension should be repealed. Three percent are unsure.

Almost six in ten voters -- 59% -- report the part of the health care law that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions should remain law while 36% want it repealed. Five percent are unsure.

And, 57% think the aspect of health care reform which closes the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare prescription drug coverage by providing assistance to pay for costs should remain in effect while 32% say it should be repealed. 11% are unsure.

To recap: Sizable majorities don't want repeal of the provisions that allow people up to age 26 to stay on their parents' plans, prevent discrimination against people with preexisting conditions, and close the prescription drug "donut hole." What's more, overall, the poll finds just as many want the law to be expanded to do more (35 percent) as want repeal (33 percent).

Now, the poll does find serious hostility to the individual mandate, with 65 percent agreeing with the widely held GOP position that it's unconstitutional to require people to buy health insurance. In other words, you'll likely see Republicans making a great deal of noise about the individual mandate -- denouncing it as "tyranny," joining lawsuits to overturn it, and so forth -- while quietly refraining from any genuine efforts to succeed at gutting or watering down the law's popular provisions.

By Greg Sargent  | November 29, 2010; 4:42 PM ET
Categories:  Health reform, House GOPers, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dear moderate GOP Senators: Moderate GOP voters want DADT repealed
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

The problem is, Greg, they don't have to attack the popular portions. If you kill the individual mandate, there's going to be little funding to insure that the other more popular portions remain in effect.

In addition, costs will continue to skyrocket (as those who have more expensive plans will not be lessened by those who won't) which will mean that those portions will be less and less effective.

My only hope is that Congress passes Wyden and Brown's amendment to both take off the sting of the mandate (by allowing an opt-out for the states who have their own plans) and by making reform seem more "legitimate" in the eyes of the public.

Posted by: calchala | November 29, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

calchala, right, but they won't kill the individual mandate. they'll direct all the NOISE in that direction...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 29, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

They also have the Supreme Court for cover: "The Supreme Court will be determining the constitutionality of the individual mandate so we won't be doing anything about that until we hear from them."

Posted by: sbj3 | November 29, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

The individual mandate was a Republican idea. It was pushed, for years, by the GOP and right leaning think tanks.

Some enterprising media type should put together a compilation of Republicans supporting the individual mandate. Then, when the GOP hypocrisy reaches a fevered pitch, they can pull a Tim Russert and play back the tape of them saying the exact opposite of what they are now saying.

Of course, that would be actual journalism, and that no longer exists in this country. It is soooooo much easier to just play he said/he said.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 29, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Reason 89 that there should be a public option. No need for a mandate to buy private insurance. Just have the government provide the health care directly. No muss no fuss.

"In other words, you'll likely see Republicans making a great deal of noise about the individual mandate -- denouncing it as "tyranny," joining lawsuits to overturn it, and so forth -- while quietly refraining from any genuine efforts to succeed at gutting or watering down the law's popular provisions."

You are a cynical man, Mr. Sargent. Yes, this tyranny will be even more tyrannical than the tyranny of healthy children. Pass the donuts and let freedom ring!

Posted by: wbgonne | November 29, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I kind of like this post-postmodern future we face; we'll move beyond the postmodern deconstruction of materialism's decadence, perhaps to become the first culture in human history organized around the creation and consumption of health care.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 29, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"first culture in human history organized around the creation and consumption of health care"

Posted by: shrink2 | November 29, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Ha! Good one!

He not busy being born is busy dying. (B. Dylan)

Posted by: wbgonne | November 29, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Q: "Do you like ice cream?" A: Yes.
Q: "Do you like whipped cream?" A: Yes.
Q: "Strawberries and nuts?" A: Yes.

Q: "Well, can you explain how come we offered you a delicious Sundae with all these ingredients, and the Rethuglicans still want to de-rail it?"

A: But doesn't this super-Sundae also include battery acid, razor blades, and cost way way way more than the Sundae I have?

Q: "What are you, one of those monkeys who follows Fox News???

Posted by: bzod9999 | November 29, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I want to see the GOP get rid of the individual mandate since it was the insurance industry that had it added. That was the compromise to get the age 26, pre existing conditions etc...

If they get rid of the mandates then it will give the industry license to raise our rates with malice and forethought...

Of course, they'll blame Obama care for the increase...

Posted by: soapm | November 29, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

EXCEPT everyone wants the health care bill repealed.


This "parts" thinking is flawed logic.

No one wants to pay for Obama's health care plan. WHAT part of that do you NOT understand ???

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 29, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Q: "What are you, one of those monkeys who follows Fox News???

A: Yes, bzod9999 is one of those monkeys who follows Fox News.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 29, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Oh look Sargent found 3 provisions out of a 2200 page bill that the people support. Then tries to convince folks that none of it can be repealed or amended because 3 provisions are popular.

Posted by: bjeagle784 | November 29, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Greg

You are taking a 2,000 page bill - with all sorts of income redistribution, subsidies - and taxes on small businesses - and boiling the whole thing down to three poll questions.


Three poll questions is NOT the bill.

The bill is 2 Trillion worth of taxes. The bill is massive increases in health care premiums - some up to 20% just this year - totally $700 Billion Dollars which is a drag on the economy.


These three poll questions do not reflect ONE LINE ITEM OF COSTS.


It is getting a little silly to watch you recycle old democratic talking points, over and over and over again - after it has become clear the country has REJECTED the health care plan.


Obama was asked to "start from scratch" at the summit - and to work hard to get something everyone could agree on. Clearly, Obama did not do that.


Perhaps THAT is really want you want. Greg, what you want is a health care bill that contains these three provisions - but also has the support of the American People, which would require it to be far less expensive.


Isn't that what you want- these three provisions in a bill that the American People can support?


THAT is what the Republicans were asking for at the summit, and all year long.


.

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 29, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/happy_hour_roundup_137.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 29, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"No mandate for repeal of health law"
-----------------------------------

BZZZZT! Wrong again Greg but keep dreamin...

29 Nov 2010
"Overall, 58% favor repeal and 37% are opposed. From the beginning, those who favor repeal feel more strongly about it. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Favor repeal and 29% are Strongly Opposed."

Posted by: illogicbuster | November 29, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I think repealing the individual mandate is a great idea. I like paying an extra $1,200 a year in premiums to pay for those people who won't buy insurance on their own. I'd rather pay $1,200 extra a year than disagree with the GOP. So yeah, repeal the individual mandate so I can continue paying for uncompensated care.

While you're at it, can you please repeal the pre-existing conditions part? My sister beat breast cancer, but she really prefers being denied an affordable plan because she got so sick a few years back. Also, can you please repeal recision, which went into effect this year? I'm planning on getting sick next year and am hoping that a repeal will lead to me being dropped. The GOP says repeal's a good thing, and just like the insurance companies, they're looking out for my best interests when it comes to quality coverage.

Posted by: mikebythesun | November 29, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

What I'd like to know is -- who are the 39% who think it's OK for insurance companies to deny policies to those with pre-existing conditions? What planet do they live on?

Posted by: bigfish2 | November 29, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

What I'd like to know is -- who are the 39% who think it's OK for insurance companies to deny policies to those with pre-existing conditions? What planet do they live on?

Posted by: bigfish2 | November 29, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

What I'd like to know is -- who are the 39% who think it's OK for insurance companies to deny policies to those with pre-existing conditions? What planet do they live on?

Posted by: bigfish2 | November 29, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Oops, sorry for the double post

Posted by: bigfish2 | November 29, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

And in other news, Americans want lower taxes and more services. And their children want dessert for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

All of those three parts of the bill cost money. Let's add a fourth question. In order to keep these parts of the HCR reform, health insurance rates will rise by 10%. [Substitute whatever actual numbers would be.] Do you still support these aspects of the bill?

Without broadening the base, so to speak, the whole thing is unfundable.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 29, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check http://ow.ly/3akSX .If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: robertjimeniz | November 29, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

...denouncing it as "tyranny,".

My what little respect you have for the Constitution. Nice try, but these aren't individual laws so cherry picking parts of it that are popular is a nonstarter and pointless, just a poor attempt at a spin job to divert attention away from the fact Polls consistently show that most Americans want the whole bill repealed.

Personally, the covering people with preexisting conditions and "children" until they are 26 years old (I had family, a house and two kids by 26) is nothing more than government intruding on private business. What company in their right mind, regardless of what product or service the sell, would take on NEW customers knowing they will lose money on them??? What freedom loving American can even begin to support such tyranny (note the absent of quotes)? How is that NOT an assault on our freedoms?

Posted by: EdSled | December 1, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Mikebythsun said: "I'd rather pay $1,200 extra a year than disagree with the GOP. So yeah, repeal the individual mandate so I can continue paying for uncompensated care."

First you have to be a halfwit to believe you're paying $1200 more a year to cover the uninsured who don't pay out of pocket. According to a Kaiser Commission report of Medicaid and the uninsured the cost of the uninsured who do not pay their bills out of pocket amounts to a meager 2.6% of total health care costs http://tinyurl.com/23fzt3n. An Urban Institute report came up with almost an identical percentage of 2.8%. However since 85% of the uninsured have their health care paid for by government the actual increase in premiums to private insurances plans from the uninsured is less than 1%. The uninsured are not the problem for high health care costs as your puppet masters would have you believe.

Mikebythsun said: "While you're at it, can you please repeal the pre-existing conditions part? My sister beat breast cancer, but she really prefers being denied an affordable plan because she got so sick a few years back."

Perhaps you think your sister should not have to carry auto insurance until AFTER she gets in an accident. I'm sure it makes perfect sense for her to not worry about hazard insurance unless her house burns down, then she could just get fire insurance after the fact and the insurance companies will have to pay for her house! This would make perfect sense, what could be fairer? Now why in the world wouldn't a private-for-profit company want to take on customers they will lose them money?! How shameful! That's so ridiculous of them, how silly! Of course they should be forced by government to do private business with whomever the government tells them to do private business with regardless of whether they make money or lose money, I mean this is America! The point of business isn't to make money, it's to provide the down and out with a service and at he same time lose money providing that service.


Posted by: EdSled | December 2, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company