How Americans Split on Health Care: It’s a 3-Way Tie

If I pay $500 more in taxes, can I have my dead brother back? (He died bc he lacked medical insurance don'cha know) No. Will my neighbor's brother NOT die? Will her son's brother not die? Will his cousin's son's brother not die? Will their cousin's son's neighbor's brother not die? It's WORTH IT. Here's my $500. My $5000. My $50,000. I want my brother back.

People who are willing to sacrifice more, may have already lost a great deal. I am for Medicare for All, or rather Single Payer. Sunday would have been my late brother's birthday. He died at 44 of congestive heart failure from High Blood Pressure, an ailment easily treated by primary care, but poorly treated when you don't have insurance. He was a brilliant man, but not mentally stable. He had been a contractor all his career and had NEVER had proper employer coverage, except that cheesy coverage-which-is-not-real-coverage that Obamacare outlawed. He died 2 years before Obamacare went into effect. The Medicaid expansion might have saved his life. In 2017, I told his story in a viral video which became the tipping point to squeeze VA Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment to bring the VA Medicaid Expansion to the floor for a vote. It passed. I will continue telling the story of my brother's untimely death every time it is necessary to make people understand that some people have lost EVERYTHING. It's time for that to end.

Significant finding unreported here: the only group trusted by all three groups to improve the system were nurses (58%). Rather than concluding it would therefore be wise to coalition with nurses and access their expertise, the report observes that external players need to coalesce around a shared vision. As a nurse, I am proud of the trust reported in the study, one replicated annually by Gallup surveying trusted and ethical professions. The implicit dismissiveness in not then turning to nurses as essential players in change planning is familiar though tedious. I would suggest these other groups might want to know why they are not trusted. Perhaps they should ask a nurse.

So sick of the press not doing its job; inform the readers, List of Countries Offering Universal Health Care Systems: Australia Health Insurance for Australians Abroad Austria Bahrain Belgium Brunei Canada (Canadian Health Care System) International Health Insurance in Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France Global Health Insurance in France Germany (German Healthcare System – GKV) German Health Insurance for Foreigners Greece Hong Kong Iceland Ireland Israel Italy (Healthcare System in Italy) Japan (Japanese Healthcare System) Kuwait Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal Singapore Slovenia South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland United Arab Emirates United Kingdon

Americans claim to know what they favor but they don’t know anything of the details. Just what America needs, more opinions founded in ignorance.

Is there a Republican plan other than doing everything possible to destroy the ACA?

The statistics for the GOP plan pretty much show the privilege aspect of their response: they have so much money or are privileged with such gold-plated benefits that they DON'T care about healthcare expenses. Ultimately, it means that they won't change in order to make the overall system more efficient, more fair or more stable.

Block grants to states have never worked well. I worked on Medicare/Medicaid cases under a block grant decades ago. I also worked with children's services under a block grant. The incentive to spend all the money rather than to treat all the patients was huge. States insist on wasting money so that they will get a larger piece of the pie the next year.

Boy I wish you’d talk to me before you publish these screwy charts that don’t say what they mean. Ruins the article.

How is it that less than 100% of those who want a Medicare for all or an expansion of Obamacare believe that healthcare is a right and that the gov't should guarantee healthcare? I can understand that those who want the Republican "plan" (whatever that is) don't believe healthcare is a right or that there should be gov't involvement, but the splay in answers for supporters of Medicare for All or for Obamacare merely points out that there remains confusion regarding healthcare plans in this large group of Americans. The Dem candidates must do a better job of communicating just what they are suggesting, the implications of their plans and the logisitics of implementation.

Did I miss something? There is no "Republican plan" except repeal of Obama care. Nothing definitive, hence votes for the Republican plan are for whatever the responder imagines is in the smoke and mirrors of their plan. Should the Republican plan be labelled "status quo"?

I did not see a question about how well Americans "like" their private insurance. Politicos have been making this statements for several months. Please PEW ask how much people are satisfied with private insurance......

I wish people could have experienced my job as an RN Case Manager in a very large hospital during the US recession. You know what it was like listening to patients who had worked hard all their lives, with sickness or injury through no fault of their own, who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, who also lost any sign of healthcare insurance? It was awful, heart wrenching, helpless. You know what it was like when the Affordable Care Act was passed in March, 2010? It was a relief, a chance that patients would have a chance that their families would have a change, that they might be able to think about living instead of dying. So sick of more debate about the ACA, it’s worthiness, its save for John McCain, would have vanished, leaving millions of Americans hopeless. So sick of Republicans stalling to make this piece of legislation worthy, helpful, while those very same people get their health insurance handed to them on a golden platter by us taxpayers. Let’s just get serious. Legislators could make the ACA better. Legislators could work with insurance companies to make the ACA and other insurances more affordable. Legislators could even pursue and get the American people an insurance for everyone through other means. Stop debating how to end healthcare insurance and start debating how to give a meaningful, fulfilling, affordable healthcare insurance to all Americans! We’ve paid our dues and deserve the best healthcare possible - all of us!

This is dangerous - and socialism is the worst proposal possible. In health care you get to choose two of the following three: cost, access, and quality. That is the reality. It would appear many NYT readers, being leftists, would agree that access for all is the responsibility of the government. I assume they want high quality. Therefore costs will be astronomical and impossible. That's the reality. Don't trust anyone who tells you otherwise. And the government is about the worst steward of finances imaginable. This is a group of people extremely easily influenced. Lobbyists own the government. Big Pharma, hospitals, physicians, you name it - they'll make sure prices stay elevated. So don't kid yourself if you think the government will negotiate sweetheart pricing for anything, ever. You can temper that a bit with physician extenders. Like most people receiving care will be seen by PAs, nurses, medical students, etc. But who gets to decide whether you get a new liver. Who gets to decide of you get to start a course of hepatitis treatment for $50,000. Mental health? Who gets gastric bypass? Not to mention elective surgery like gender reassignment. This is such a dangerous policy topic, and most people know absolutely nothing about the reality of health care costs.

People want free stuff. The devil is in the details. So many hands in the healthcare cookie jar. Wish we could start over.

Retired physician, 75, and in my body I have 4 stents ($6000 each), one artificial knee ($7500), about 20 anchors in my shoulders ($? but certainly not cheap); this is only the parts and not the "labor" costs. Friend of mine had a mitral valve repair and after 3 years his total cost was just under $600,000!!! Got psoriasis and want Taltz?: Pony up somehow $130000 per year!! And there are about 50 million "boomers" on the rise. These costs are miniscule compared to the total costs associated with aging and technology. Ya think insurance companies can stay in business with cost like these? Three answers: unaffordable premiums, unaffordable co-pays, no coverage of certain unaffordable treatments. The discussion of some type of national health insurance absolutely must take place or the platinum/titanium stents will not be available to the vast numbers of us with coronary disease. And much more. Get serious, people.

What I would find helpful, but at some level I doubt could be provided, would be a series of vignettes to clarify the taxes go up but health care costs go down scenario. I do pay a significant monthly amount for health insurance, which, even with the high deductible, did pay off in this cancer ridden year, but I would like to that go down. I am lucky to be able to afford these costs; many are not. So let see some estimates-associated with each type of health care plan-along the lines of proposed taxes minus typical health care costs at different income levels. I think that would help clarify the discussion. It is not enough for Warren to duck the question or for Sanders to say that, of course, taxes would go up without some idea of how that would impact one's overall financial picture. Without an idea of the impact of a health plan on one's overall budget, it is hard to assess their impact. That said, I lean heavily towards increased public investment in health, education and other social infrastructures. I can't help but think that nipping a problem in the bud won't lead to diminishing overall societal costs.

Our legislators won't do anything about Medicare prescription drug pricing, but everyone wants to expand Medicare. Fix what we have first. This is a lack of honesty and commitment.

If only that 2/3 will actually vote.

This is like hearing people talk about a book they never read. The Medicare for All plan of Sanders and Warren will require immense new staffing levels that dwarf anything the US has done since World War II. Forget about money. This is about administration. Even if everything goes smooth, it will take at least a decade to roll-out. A national public option is nearly as difficult. Here's how you'll know when a politician is actually serious: instead of "getting rid of insurance co's," they'll say they want to nationalize them. That would actually be a clever way to gain the management needed. Short of something like that, it's just hot air. Incidentally, you want to make people really love their insurance? Turn Medicare into a mess. Which could happen, if, like in Sanders plan, it goes from serving 60 million to 180 million in 3 years.

What isn't talked about is the yearly increase in healthcare costs. The system we have now doesn't control costs. The ACA slowed the growing costs costs of healthcare, but thanks to republicans hacking at it, costs are spiraling again. We are in a moment of history to really fix healthcare in this country. Everyone knows we pay almost double what other countries pay with worse outcomes. Let's have the courage to fix this with a good plan.

Has anyone noticed that Medicare is not ALL about tax money? I actually pay a monthly premium, which is subtracted from the Social Security payment. Granted, the amount of the premium is determined on a sliding scale, so at the lower end there would be a substantial infusion of tax money. And don't get me started on "Social Security is also tax money". Social Security is my retirement fund, into which I paid, and paid, and paid, from the time I turned 16 and got my first part-time job. It is NOT "a government handout".

If health care costs/insurance are separated from employers, then I believe it is likely that there will be less discrimination against women and older individuals. Group health care for companies does take into account monies spent, which means employers pay less and have lower risk of extremely expensive or chronic illnesses or events. They have every incentive to discriminate - which is why so many companies have mass layoffs that allow them to "clean house" and bring in new younger staff to replace them. What my company did.

Who are those folks who are 20% of the supporters of the Republican plan (what plan?) and also believe in universal coverage? Thinking skills seem not to be valued among some Republicans.

"That means that most Americans support Democratic approaches to changing the health care system." To repeat the obvious (except to journalists, it seems), there is NO Health Care System in this country. Instead, there are hundreds of health care systems, hospital and medical groups, billing companies, insurance plans, tens of thousands of independent health providers, drug makers and distributors, and drive-ins all competing for the same pool of dollars and furiously resisting any threat to their income stream. What, you're sick or injured and have no dollars? Step aside, please.

Two points: 1) I did some research and guess that 1.8 MM people are involved in Healthcare insurance (underwriting, billing, etc.). Approximately 18 million people are in the healthcare field - the largest US employer according to the US Labor Bureau. 2) about 156M Americans get their insurance through employer plans - including some hard won wins by labor unions - for which they often gave up salary. These are large constituencies. Any candidate and party, needs to find ways to assuage these large blocks. I think it would also be good to think about the difference between government run and government managed. Many of the countries often and rightly cited with programs that deliver better results for half the cost fall into this latter category. Even in Britain with its vaunted NHS, people of means buy into private insurance programs and services. Unfortunately, the devil being in the details does not make for the clean talking points necessary to win an overwhelming majority of support and make it possible to win. And get through Congress and fight the head winds of the lobbyists.

As a nurse case manager, I find very few patients that I meet understand their health insurance. When people are ill or injured they become more vulnerable. Considering that we all are patients someday, having an early awareness of your healthcare options is as important as purchasing home insurance. Many patients I meet over age 60 have no plan for aging. Most have more than 3 chronic medical conditions. Some even believe that Medicare will pay for long term care. Most Medicaid recipients don't know how to access their assigned primary care doctor. They still believe that the emergency room provides primary care. I suggest that we first seek to understand our own health liabilities and opportunities. It is much easier to understand macro when you have a grip on the micro. Healthcare literacy begins with the individual. Yes, the US is the most expensive and convoluted system on the planet. But if you don't have a basic understanding of your options then the choice of payor system is irrelevant. After your house burns down, it is a bit late to realize that your coverage didn't include fires.

What angers me the most is that politicians, pundits, and journalists that know better play along with the "your taxes are going to go up" meme rather than make known that the costs overall will go down under a universal health system. Your taxes may go up, but you (and your employer in many cases) will no longer be paying money to a for-profit insurance company. You will no longer be locked into a network of hospitals, physicians and clinics not of your choosing, you will not have a huge deductible to meet on January 1 and you will no longer have to make a choice between seeing the Doctor and paying your rent. I am an independent, work in a licensed healthcare profession and support universal health insurance as a basic right of all citizens. America's private system costs too much, fails too many people, and leaves a trail of financial misery and hardship unlike any other OECD nation.

One issue that is often overlooked in these discussions is the influence that the for-profit actors in the health care system have on rolling back the "reforms" they can't control. The undermining of so many promising aspects of t5he ACA since it was passed is clear warning of how a reform can be greatly undermined by powerful financial interests. I do not see how we can expect to really deal with the underlining issues of our dysfunctional and overly complex system until the power of these actors to pull back so many forward steps has been broken. That's reason one for my support for a single payer type system.

I find it perplexing that 60 percent of those favoring the Republican plan believe healthcare is a right, but only 20 percent of that same group think the government should ensure that all Americans had health coverage. If the government doesn't ensure this right, then who does?

Candidates who can articulate the compromise position of Medicare/Public Option for all who want to buy into it--which will be quite a large number if the cost profile of a not for profit plan spread over a large cohort is in any way similar to those of innumerable other nations--can garner widespread support and win elections. This position has the advantage of allowing "choice"--a very big issue in the US--and allowing a gradual transition away from employer-connected insurance status while still allowing some place for private insurance to cover the non-essentials. Over time, it would also free up a lot of entrepreneurial energy. The devil may well be in the details of exactly what such an option will cover and what co-pays and deductibles there may be, but the overall cost to consumers is almost certainly going to be lower, perhaps significantly so.

All other top 20 nations of the world have a single-payer national administration, which includes negotiation of prices and regulations that prevent the skyrocketing of drugs, imaging and hospital care that we see in the USA due to our "managed-illness-for-profit" approach to "healthcare." Example: Insulin in Canada is offered at $24 vs $240 in the USA, where people are rationing their insulin and DYING. As a nation, we are already paying $3.5 trillion a year for "healthcare" that includes $23 billion in PROFITS for insurance corporations and their investors.. which is just a useless negative. The people of the USA are paying TWICE what people in European nations are spending on the same amount of healthcare: Especially for prescription drugs and medical imaging. We are the only nation that does nothing, while 500,000 families every year go bankrupt due to unpaid medical bills --- And the majority had insurance at the time of their injury or illness. It is a fact that 5 out of 6 people in long term nursing home care are being paid for by taxpayers via Medicaid because they were dumped by their private insurance when they were no longer "profitable."

It has to be done incrementally. Why not slowly lower the age for Medicare, offer coverage to people at age 60 rather than 65.

Why does this article leave out mention of Kamala Harris’s proposal for a middle way between Biden/Buttigieg and Warren/Sanders? Seems like her plan for Medicare for all with private options (which is much more like Medicare today than other plans) is precisely the plan with “broad appeal” to which Mr Blendon refers.

Hello, This is like saying Americans want to get out of the Middle Ages with our de facto criminal health care system. It is the biggest winning issue for democrats, ie a national, affordable, quality health plan that just about all of our peer countries have. It is not rocket science. One can differ on details but any other countries' plan is light yrs. better than our de facto criminal one.

Ranked voting might have clarified your findings.

The Upshot never addresses the premium and deductible side of a switch to Medicare for All. #Weak

I am a medical dropout. By that I mean that I do not have a regular physician to see should I become ill or need care for a simple problem like a sprained ankle, or a rash that won't go away. This is due to the idiocy of our current wealth care system. We're no longer allowed to select our physicians based upon their proximity to where we live or keep them if we like them unless they happen to be on the approved provider list our wealth insurance company has. Our physicians, if we have them, are no longer able to send us to specialists unless those people are on the approved list, the wealth insurance company approves the visit, etc. Our current system is a failure in so many ways that it would take a weighty tome to catalog each one. What we receive in the USA is not medical care or health care: it's a joke. Doctors don't communicate. EHR systems are proprietary and designed for insurance companies not doctors. We waste millions of wealth care dollars on paperwork, calls to insurance companies, and mistakes that shouldn't be made. There is no reason why I or any other person needing medical care anywhere in America should have to do a wallet biopsy before we go for care or worry that our care isn't covered by insurance no matter where we are. Universal medical care should mean that if I live in NY and require care in NM it's covered, period. No hassle medical care would be nice. 10/30/2019 11:08am first submit

It is thinking that having the states in a race-to-the-bottom on health coverage is a fabulous idea that got us the likes of CurrentOccupant as prez.

These surveys always have a problem. First, have they ever experienced an expensive health care problem? About one third Americans will experience it at some point even before they are retired. Second, America might have the best health care available in the world but that is entirely predicated on the ability to pay. Third, evidently those supporting the Republican plan have not had a medical problem or have the ability to pay. It must be nice.

I am frustrated by the lack of information which should guide the decision. It is easy enough to find estimates of the total cost of U.S. health care (and they are horrendous), but not at all easy to find the data on which these estimates are presumably based. Who pays for what? Is care covered by insurance costed as the cost of the policy, or as the amount actually paid out? How is the information from tax returns handled? There are a host of these questions for which answers are to find. Perhaps Upshot could help. Meanwhile, Britain's experience shows the danger of a health system completely managed by the government. Britain's NHS was once an excellent service, but under the Conservatives it is beginning to fall apart, the result of inept administrative changes and financial starvation.

Here we go again. The Upshot is twisting its "survey" by telling respondents that Medicare for all would cost more than the current system: "critiques based on the high cost of the proposal probably won’t do much to deter its strongest supporters." In fact, far from being a "high cost" proposal, in every country in which this type of universal single-payer system has been implemented, the cost of healthcare is dramatically less- not more, less- than our system costs us. So the entire survey was based on a lie. Further, The Upshot keeps hammering away at a half-truth tantamount to a lie: that your taxes will go up. What you pay for healthcare will drop dramatically. And therefore it is a scare tactic to pretend that "taxes will go up," as if costs will go up, when the truth is that costs will go down. The Upshot has for months been guilty of this sort of dishonest hit-job on Medicare for all. It needs to stop.