Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH  

Opinion   

share
email
print
font size
options
 
Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) came face to face with opponents of President Obama´s health-care plans before a town-hall meeting last summer.
AKIRA SUWA / Staff Photographer
Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) came face to face with opponents of President Obama's health-care plans before a town-hall meeting last summer.
READER FEEDBACK
Post a comment


Why is reforming health care so hard?

Broad satisfaction and deep divides hinder change.

By Sean E. Flaherty

and Joseph J. Karlesky

The American health-care system is widely perceived as too expensive, rigid, and inaccessible. Yet the results of a recent Franklin and Marshall College poll on health care conflict with that perception.

A substantial majority of those polled expressed satisfaction with the health-care system. In fact, nearly eight in 10 said the system meets their needs "very well" or "pretty well," while three out of four insured respondents rated their coverage as "good" or "very good."

Furthermore, fewer than one in seven said an insurer had refused to cover a doctor-recommended treatment or procedure, and fewer than one in 15 said an insurer had denied a request to see a specialist.

These numbers help explain the substantial political difficulties faced by those proposing major changes in a health-care system that satisfies many Americans, even though it excludes a minority of them. That most people are relatively satisfied with what they have increases their anxiety about change.

Medicare, for example, has enormous support among seniors, many of whom worry that it could be adversely affected by health-care reform. The poll found that Medicare recipients are significantly less likely than those with private insurance to have been denied coverage of doctor-recommended treatments. About 16 percent of the privately insured have been denied coverage for a specific test or procedure, while the figure among Medicare recipients is just 4 percent.

Only a minority of respondents told the Franklin and Marshall survey that the health-care system is not serving them well. But this minority could grow if more companies forgo offering health-insurance benefits to their employees, or if more Americans experience long-term unemployment.

Can those proposing change persuade Americans that the health-care benefits most of them enjoy are at risk of being overwhelmed by growing costs? Just below the surface of the apparently broad satisfaction with health care, a substantial majority (79 percent) believes the system is in need of reform. But consensus on the appropriate focus and scope of this reform remains elusive.

Of those who support reform, 43 percent say the system works "pretty well" and needs only minor changes. But an almost equal number (47 percent) say the system has so many problems that it should be completely rebuilt.

Among those who would like to see only minor changes, Republicans outnumber Democrats by almost 2-to-1. Among those who want major changes, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 4-to-1.

With fewer moderate Northeastern Republicans and Southern Democrats in Congress today, the leavening effects of intraparty differences are much weaker. The sharp partisan divide, the dominant marker of contemporary American politics, is mirrored in our survey responses.

In September, U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.) shouted "You lie!" during President Obama's address to Congress on health care. In a speech several weeks later in the same chamber, Rep. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.) charged that the Republican health-care plan is "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly."

Such harsh, unforgiving, and partisan rhetoric is reflected in the deep split between our survey respondents. No wonder change is so difficult.


Sean Flaherty is a professor of economics at Franklin and Marshall College. Joseph Karlesky is a professor of government there. They can be reached at sean.flaherty@fandm.edu and joe.karlesky@fandm.edu.
Comments   
Posted 07:50 AM, 11/09/2009
glennm7
Who paid for this survey? Where is a description of the sampling? By leaving that information out of such a report, this survey cannot be taken seriously. It looks like another example of deliberate propaganda. You shame the newspaper by printing such "science."
Posted 08:14 AM, 11/09/2009
p.e.poole
Many surveys have said just the same. Rassmussen included. Look it up. When 85% of the country is insured and what is being proposed as a reform is a radical reconstitution of the health care industry, why is it such a surprise that people would be apprehensive or even scared out of their wits. Let's be clear, not everyone buys what the Libs are selling.
Posted 09:47 AM, 11/09/2009
glennm7
There are problems with the Hearst Tv sponsored poll and the conclusions reported in the article are not supported. Even so 62% of respondents favor a medi-care for all option while 10% "don't know."! I'm glad pe poole likes the findings which were poorly reported. In the survey, southern respondenta outnumber northeast respondents (36% to 19). Born again christians were 44% of respondents which is an interesting aspect of the data. The questions begin asking about the "healthcare system." That is not the same as the health insurance system. It's mixed in a way that impacts the reliability of the responses and conclusions being offered. Respondents are rating the healthcare system not insurance reform. That is a possible explanation for why the "medicare for all option" number seems so inconsistent with the conclusions. Whether intentional or deliberate this confusion causes a serious problem for the conclusions reported in the article.
Comment removed.
Posted 01:55 PM, 11/09/2009
intelliwoman
If the system works so well, why am I, a hard working (2 jobs) taxpaying law abiding citizen sitting here with a 2x its normal size black and purple foot that may be fractured, and have no access to get an xray or see a doctor because of the cost? Why was my employer allowed to drop my coverage when she tunred 65 and didn't need me for a group rate anymore? Why can't I get private insurance because of a pre existing condition for less than 60% of my taske home income (and lousy insurance at that?) Why would I be able to gett 100% free tax payer funded healthcare, dental care and vision car if I quit my job and sat home on my rear end?
Posted 12:26 AM, 11/10/2009
Thoughtful&concernedvoter
Here is what Gallup reported today: Americans have moved in a more negative direction on the basic issue of whether a new bill should be passed into law. Thirty-eight percent now say they would advise their member of Congress to vote against a new healthcare bill this year, while 29% would advise their member to vote for it, and about a third have no opinion. When those with no opinion are asked which way they lean, the verdict becomes 48% "against," and 43% "for." Both of these results are more negative than those from early October.
Posted 09:26 AM, 11/10/2009
sycodon
It's hard because they have always approached it from a fundamentally wrong direction. Instead of trying to reduce costs, they try to accommodate them. There are many ways to get the feds involved in reducing costs if you must have them involved. For instance, capital infrastructure. The feds could subsidize expensive test equipment. They can subsidize medical education. They could subsidize drug development in exchange for caps on pricing. Etc. Etc. If you must get the feds involved, make their involvement limited to what they do best, large capital expenditures.
Posted 02:00 PM, 11/10/2009
Cogs
Why is reforming health care so hard? Because it's not about health care; It's about power and comtrol. Simple.
8 comments
  • Top Jobs
  • Top Homes
  • Top Cars
 
SEARCH JOBS
Roxborough


$294,900
523 HERMITAGE ST
Germantown


$129,000
413 E WOODLAWN ST
SEARCH CARS

Buy Inquirer, Daily News & Philly merchandise here including:

 
Books
 
Movies
 
Page Reprints
 
Photo Licensing
 
Photos