Michael Moynihan chooses to characterize the British-style, single-payer system as a "radical prescription " that "will likely have little resonance with [American] viewers." This despite the fact, that according to a 2003 WaPo/ABC News poll:

79% of Americans say they support "providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes" over "holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage."

62% say they support a universal health care system "run by the government and financed by taxpayers" over the current system.

57% say they would support this program even "if it limited your own choice of doctors" (which doesn't necessarily have to be a side-effect of a single-payer system).

62% say they would support this program even "if it meant there were waiting lists for some non-emergency treatments."

What appears radical to me is the current crazy (and unique) health care system that we're stuck with.

Useless HTML tags...

More polling on American support of "radical" single-payer health care system: a recent CNN poll (5/4-5/6/07), 64 percent of respondents supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." And a recent CBS/New York Times poll (2/23-27/07) found 64 percent support for the idea that the federal government should "guarantee health insurance for all," and 60 percent supported paying higher taxes to provide such coverage. Additionally, 50 percent believed "fundamental changes" to the healthcare system were necessary, and another 40 percent thought the country needed to "completely rebuild" the system.

Sure, lots of people will tell pollsters that they support an idea in theory--when the benefits seem lofty and the downsides ("raising taxes," "waiting lists for some non-emergency treatments") are fairly vague. But when it actually gets down to the details, they may be less enthusiastic. This post by Jane Galt explains it pretty well.

Also, I find the idealistic "I'm willing to pay higher taxes so my fellow man can get health insurance" sentiment completely at odds with the behavior I witness when trying to merge into traffic.

By the way, Jane links to a 2003 ABC/WaPo poll (the same one you refer to, perhaps?), but the results of this poll indicate that only 39% support a universal health care system with waiting lists for non-emergency care, and only 35% with a limited choice of doctors.

Eric

My family is covered by Oxford, which limits our choice of doctors, as do most other insurance providers, unless I am willing to pay (a lot) extra for an out-of-network doctor. My understanding is that there are HMOs that do not allow going out-of-network at all, and that there are some who ONLY allow you to go to their clinics, so I'm not sure what these 65% of people so concerned about "a limited choice of doctors" are. My understanding is that it does also not necessarily go part and parcel with the single-payer system.

The League of Women Voters doesn't believe that the much-hyped Canada-style waiting lists would be a problem here: The United States spends nearly $6,100 per person for health care annually, compared to Canada's $2,980, and that even a "relatively small" increase in funding would shorten the lines.

Anyway, my point is simply that, generally speaking, a majority of Americans do not consider a single-payer health care system to be a "radical prescription" at all, and labelling it that way conveniently makes it all too easy to disregard as a possible solution to our health care problem.

Whoops..."that even a "relatively small" increase in funding would shorten the lines" refers to Canada, not the USA.

JohnS,

You live in NYC, right? Surely there must be many, many physicians in the city who are part of your Oxford network. My choice of physicians is also "limited" by my network, but there are literally dozens of in-network primary care doctors within a 5-mile radius of my home in the Philly suburbs.

Anyway, use of the term "radical" is subjective, and certainly there are varying degrees to which we could potentially socialize the U.S. health care system, but I think it's safe to describe a completely government-run system as a radical departure from our current almost completely private system.

Eric-

Yes, we live in NYC. And although we have a wide network of available doctors, we are still "limited" to the doctors in that network (I assume most people have similar limitations in their choice of doctors), so I am honestly perplexed that so many people might be put off by single payer because they might possibly (but not necessarily) be limited in their choice of doctors under that system...

I would absolutely agree with you that single-payer would be a radical "departure" from our current system, but not with Michael Moynihan that it is a radical "prescription."

When people speak of a limited choice of doctors in a single-payer system, they're clearly not talking about a "limited choice" of a few dozen doctors, they're talking about being limited to a number in the small single digits. I'm not an expert, so I'll take your word that that's not inherent to single-payer systems, but that's what the concern is.

I'd like to see a poll target people who actually live under universal health care. Those are the ones who actually see how it functions.

This is interesting.

From TheHill.com: "A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare...Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American..."

Lots more interesting poll results, but they don't relate to this thread. It was conducted by GOP consultant Tony Fabrizio.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html

Interesting. I found the full survey presentation, and the actual text of that question was:

"Which of the following statements comes CLOSEST to YOUR opinion regarding health care?

Universal health care coverage SHOULD BE a guaranteed right of every American

Universal health care coverage SHOULD NOT BE a guaranteed right of every American"

(emphasis in original)

Other than repeating my above point that people respond well to idealistic statments in polls, but become less enthusiastic when the particulars become known, I'll point out that "universal health care coverage" is not the same thing as "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans." The former could include proposals to help small businesses provide coverage for their employees and to provide coverage for the unemployed, while letting people who are already covered through their employers keep that coverage. Republicans would naturally be much more friendly to that idea than to a single payer health care system.

Other than repeating my above point that people respond well to idealistic statments in polls, but become less enthusiastic when the particulars become known...

Sure Eric, that but applies to just about anything. You could as well poll:

Owning a gun SHOULD BE a guaranteed right of every American

Owning a gun SHOULD NOT BE a guaranteed right of every American

Many Americans, I would assume, would answer in the affirmative, but become less enthusiastic when talking about particular Americans, and particular guns. But in general, they accept the principal.

Likewise for universal health care coverage.

You're right of course that universal health care coverage and single-payer are not one and the same. But it's related to this thread and the fact that a majority of GOPers now think that it's a right came as a shocker to me...

It surprised me too, which is why I took a closer look at exactly how the question was asked. And I do think the way this question was phrased is most likely to yield the most pro-universal-coverage result possible.

Consider further that it's worded as a contrast between positive and negative statements. If the choice was "Universal health care for all Americans should be guaranteed by some form of government intervention" versus "Health care in America should remain a free-market enterprise," I suspect that slim majority *for* universal health care would turn into a significant majority against.