University of Houston
Center for Public Policy
conducted June 20-29, 2002
Q8. I’m going to read you some different ways to guarantee health care for more Americans and Texans. As I read each one, please tell me whether you would favor or oppose it.
52% favor – A national health plan, financed by taxpayers, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan.
72% favor – Requiring businesses to offer private health insurance for their employees.
69% favor – Offering uninsured Americans income tax deductions, tax credits, or other financial assistance to help them purchase private health insurance on their own.
72% favor – Expanding state government programs for low-income people, such as the Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, to provide coverage for people without health insurance.
75% favor – Expanding the neighborhood health clinics.
Comment: The University of Houston poll used precisely the same phrasing for a national health plan as does Professor Robert Blendon of Harvard in his polls. Including the terms “financed by taxpayers” and “a single government plan” invariably results in a low percentage of positive responses. The 52% favorable response in this poll is especially remarkable in that Texas is not exactly noted for its liberal-progressive activism.
Texans apparently really do want to see that everyone is guaranteed access to health care. There is even stronger support for various “incremental” proposals, as the numbers above indicate. All of them involve some form of tax subsidy (including the regressive taxation of the employer mandate). It is most likely that there is some degree of awareness that these proposals represent egalitarian ideals made possible by public funding (although maybe not expressed in these terms).
It would be interesting to see the response if the public understood more of the policy behind the proposals. They are willing to support these tax funded expansions, but they are probably not aware that the increased costs are greater than would be the costs of a national health insurance program. Also, they are probably not aware that they could have more health care benefits with fewer out-of-pocket expenses with national health insurance.
Do you suppose that there might be a different response to the national health insurance option if the respondents were asked if they supported a program that increased their benefits, gave them free choice of providers, provided coverage for everyone, and controlled our health care costs? Naw… they don’t want the government involved. After all, what’s really important here?