In addition to the Anzalone poll I posted earlier, showing support for the public option in Blue Dog districts, a second poll has been circulated on the Hill today, with a clear warning to Dems on just how disastrous a bill that had a mandate to buy crappy insurance without the choice of a public option--i.e., the Baucus bill--would be.
"Nationally," the memo reads, "voters oppose a mandate to purchase private insurance by 64% to 34% but support a mandate with a choice of private or public insurance by 60% to 37%... Each [survey] found that likely 2010 voters oppose 'requiring everyone to buy and be covered by a private health insurance plan' but support 'requiring everyone to buy and be covered by a health insurance plan with a choice between a public option and private insurance plans.'"
In a not-so-subtle message to Senate Democrats, the memo concludes with a warning shot at the Senate Finance Committee's legislation - which seems unlikely to include a public plan.
"All of the health care reform proposals that have passed Congressional committees to date, including three House committees and the Senate HELP Committee, include an individual mandate and the choice of private or public health insurance," the HCAN memo reads. "The Chairman's mark introduced into the Senate Finance Committee includes the individual mandate without the choice of a public health insurance option."
Let's look at that in table form, just to make it crystal clear (click on the image to enlarge):
and reinforce the message: Nationally voters oppose a mandate to purchase private insurance by 64% to 34% but support a mandate with a choice of private or public insurance by 60% to 37%.
The LA Times had a must read story today that really brings that point home (via FDL):
In the drive to bring health coverage to almost every American, lawmakers have largely rejected restrictions on how much insurers can charge, sparking fears that consumers will continue to face the skyrocketing premium increases of recent years.
The legislators' reluctance to control premium costs comes despite the fact that they intend to require virtually all Americans to get health insurance, an unprecedented mandate -- long sought by insurance companies -- that would mark the first time the federal government has compelled consumers to buy a single industry's product, effectively creating a captive market.
"We are about to force at least 30 million people into an insurance market where the sharks are circling," said California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a Democrat who served as the state's insurance commissioner for eight years. "Without effective protections, they will be eaten alive."
Soaring premiums coupled with millions of new customers forced to buy policies would likely mean higher costs for taxpayers to cover government subsidies for lower-income families and individuals.
...
"If the government is going to require people to buy an insurance policy, they have to guarantee it is affordable," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog. "It is unconscionable not to."
The Baucus bill as is would be a disaster in terms of policy and in terms of politics. I've argued in favor of mandates before, because all things being equal, they are critical to getting to universal coverage. But that's in an environment in which there is an affordable, effective alternative to private insurance, or private insurance is as heavily and effectively regulated with price controls as it is in every other developed country that provides universal coverage and has individual mandates.
Mandates without a strong public option to ensure competition and without price controls to ensure affordability are completely unacceptable. Hopefully the Finance Commitee members can take this long weekend to let that reality soak in.
