PLANK SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

Conservatives panicking over Mitt Romney’s poll numbers want him to talk about policy in more detail, particularly when it comes to health care. Nothing would please me more. But conservatives wishing for a more honest, substantive debate might want to look at a new survey out today. The results suggest that Republican positions on Medicare and perhaps even Obamacare are less popular than I realized.
The survey is the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. Its most striking result is the primary question about Medicare reform. It asks respondents whether Medicare “should continue as it is today, with the government providing health insurance and paying doctors and hospitals directly” or whether it “should be changed to a system where the government provides seniors with a fixed sum of money they could use either to purchase private health insurance or to pay the cost of remaining in the current Medicare program.” The wording seems relatively straightforward and without terms designed to sway opinion one way or another. It says nothing about “vouchers,” for example, and it doesn’t raise the possibility that seniors might have to pay more if the system changes. But 67 percent of respondents said they preferred keeping Medicare as is, while only 26 percent said they favored the Republican reforms.
That result is consistent with other polling on the issue, as far as I know. It also makes intuitive sense, at least if you’ve ever spoken to anybody on Medicare. Policy experts, including some to the left of center, love to talk about the virtues of competition and supposed efficiency of the private insurance market. Sometimes they even make valid arguments: From a policy perspective, Medicare really does have some problems. But most seniors like Medicare just the way it is. It’s easy to use and covers pretty much every medical service they might need. Most important of all, they never have to worry it will disappear. Non-seniors can appreciate these things, too. Most of us also know what it’s like to choose from among private insurance plans and to deal with insurance company bureaucracies. That's not a lot of fun. And many of us understand what it's like to lose insurance or, at least, worry about losing it. That's not a lot of fun, either.
The poll did not ask respondents whether their opinion would change if, as the Republicans promise, the program wouldn’t change for ten years and, even then, only for new enrollees. (That’s not entirely true, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.) But the more telling result for me was a follow-up question, about the infamous $716 billion in Medicare cuts that President Obama signed as part of the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have attacked this decision as “raiding” or “robbing” Medicare to pay for “other people.” The pollsters put that question to respondents, albeit in less loaded terms: Obamacare “puts much of that money into expanding the Medicaid program for the poor and working class as well as preventative health care. Do you think that was a good use of the Medicare savings?” Much to my surprise, 56 percent said yes and only 33 percent said no.
The other questions on Obamacare were similarly revealing. Many of us have hoped that the Affordable Care Act would prove more popular with time. So far, that hasn't happened. (In other words, folks like me were wrong.) But the National Journal poll suggests the public may be feeling more kindly towards the law, if only slightly. Will Obamacare help “the middle class”? In the survey, 45 percent said yes and just 40 said no. Will it help “people like you and your family”? Forty-three percent said yes and 39 said no. Will it help “the country overall”? Fifty percent said yes and 39 said no. That’s not exactly a groundswell, but popular support does seem to be higher than it was in the summer, when National Journal asked some of these questions previously and Gallup did its own, very similar survey. And Rasmussen may also have picked up a small shift, according to Jeffrey Anderson of the Weekly Standard.
Stronger support for Obamacare could reflect any number of factors. Maybe people are hearing about or taking advantage of the law’s early benefits, like coverage of young adults, wider availability of free preventative care, and prescription drug assistance for seniors. Maybe they are associating opposition to the law with Romney, whom they see as a plutocrat that doesn't care about the middle class. Maybe they watched Bill Clinton’s speech, in which he defended the law without ambiguity or hesitation. Or maybe they haven't changed their minds at all—this is statistical noise and the next poll will show enthusiasm for Obamacare back down to where it was before. I really have no idea.
Either way, the broader point stands. The more Romney talks about his plans, the more he'll have to acknowledge the unpopular trade-offs—and not just on health care. If Romney provides details on his tax plan, he'll have to tell non-wealthy voters he's raising their taxes or admit that his plan will, on its own, increase the deficit. If he provides more details on his spending plan, he'll have to tell the voters about massive cuts to federal programs they cherish. If he goes into detail about his economic agenda, he'll have to admit that serious economists doubt that agenda will do much to create jobs in the short run.
Specifics may not help Romney politically. If anything, they may hurt.
By the way, for more on conservatives urging Romney to be specific, see Sahil Kapur at Talking Points Memo and Paul Waldman at the American Prospect. And for a slightly less sanguine take on the same poll, see Greg Sargent.
follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn
8 comments
Exactly. The more specifics we know about Romney's positions, the less we want them. The reality-challenged Republicans are ignoring this, but it's true. Regarding how much America likes the ACA -- since the Republicans gained the House and almost got a majority in the Senate in 2010 on how much they lied about the ACA, it's nice that enough benefits of ACA have kicked in that 1/2 the country isn't believing the lies anymore. That's improvement, in my book. And it probably didn't help that Ryan has produced his "Voucherize Medicare" plan which clearly demonstrates Republican lack of support of these critical services.
- AllanL5
September 11, 2012 at 2:57pm
Typo alert! The survey that you quote actually poses whether Medicare “should continue as it is today, with the government providing health insurance and PAYING (not "providing") doctors and hospitals directly”. Jonathan Cohn doesn't need me to tell him that this is a huge difference between Medicare and, say, the VA or the British NHS. If nothing else, this kind of blurring of distinctions really confuses the Mr_Rationales of the world.
- wildboy
September 11, 2012 at 3:16pm
The questions appear a bit biased to me (even though I think the Ryan plan is deeply unpopular). For example, it talks about the voucher plan as providing a "fixed sum of money," which implies that it limited and will never change year-to-year. Ryan's plan does provide for cost increases, if I recall. In addition, the question "Do you think that was a good use of the Medicare savings?" doesn't answer what you think it does. It's not whether the cuts were a good idea in the first place, but whether the savings were put to good use. That's a very different question.
- polcereal
September 11, 2012 at 3:27pm
Mind you, this is an old pattern, going back to 1980 and Reagan. In general, Republicans say they want to "reduce Entitlements". What this dog-whistle phrase really means is "eliminate/privatize Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid". In general, it sounds good. When they get around to doing the specifics, as Reagan, Bush-I, and Bush-II all tried, it's soundly rejected by the electorate. Not because the electorate is selfish or stupid, but because these programs work so well. Sure, there's a couple of trillion dollars of value there that Republicans salivate about -- but how else are you going to fund a retirement plan for a hundred million people? That's not "waste", that's equity.
- AllanL5
September 11, 2012 at 3:39pm
Thanks wildboy. Just fixed.
- Jonathan Cohn
September 11, 2012 at 3:43pm
I'm having dejavu all over again. Weren't we in a similar spot with McCain being unable to discuss specifics without turning everyone off of his proposals?
- GSpinks
September 11, 2012 at 3:56pm
"The more Romney talks about his plans, the more he'll have to acknowledge the unpopular trade-offs—and not just on health care." You don't have to acknowledge unpopular trade-offs if you can succesfully pretend that related actions are not connected to one another. Reagan was effective at pretending tax cuts would not yield less revenue (i.e. no trade-off with deficits or spending cuts) and Bush was effective in pretending there was no connection between waging wars and having to increase tax rates. Or that CO2 and climate change are unrelated.
- Nusholtz
September 11, 2012 at 4:28pm
I tried reading the Affordable Care Act when it was voted into law. After reviewing the table of contents and about five more pages, I looked away, and I haven't been back. My intelligence may be ordinary. I salute anyone who has read it thoroughly enough to offer an opinion. Okay, my point is that health care discussions can be a trap for politicians. Anyone looking for votes and trying to explain government intervention in public health care should have at least three hours uninterrupted time, lots of visual aids and an audience that didn't just come in for the coffee or to escape the inclement weather. When was the last time anyone heard or wanted to hear a politician speak on any subject for that length of time?
- Doug12
September 11, 2012 at 5:04pm