polling – The Health Care Blog

Understanding #Medicare4All & the Democratic Primaries

Feb 24, 2020• 16

By MATTHEW HOLT

Since Saturday’s Nevada primaries, confusion seems to be reigning about how Bernie Sanders seems to be winning. Time (and not a lot more of it) will tell who actually ends up as the Democratic nominee. But the progressive side (Bernie + Warren) is doing much better than the moderate side (Biden/Butt-edge-edge/Klobuchar) expected, while we wait to see how the Republican side of the Democratic primary (Bloomberg) does in an actual vote. The key here is the main policy differential between the two sides, Medicare For All.

Don’t get too hung up in the details of the individual plans, especially as revealing said details may have hurt Elizabeth Warren. But do remember that there is one big difference between Sanders/Warren and the moderates. It comes down to whether everyone is in the same state-run single payer system (a modified and expanded version of Medicare) or whether the private employer system is left as it is, with expanded access to something that looks like Medicare (the public option) for everyone else. Note that no Democrat wants to stand pat on Obamacare “as is”. Everyone is way to the left of what Obama ran on in 2008 (or at least what he settled for in early 2009).

Why has this changed? Well there’s been a decade of horror stories. I’m not talking about the BS anti-Obamacare stories from people forced to give up their junk insurance, I’m talking about people with insurance being bankrupted or put through horrendous experiences, like this mother who was put through the ringer by various insurers when her 1 year old son was killed and husband injured in a road accident. Or this health tech CEO, who was an MD & JD and had to put $62,000 on his American Express card to get surgery.

About 3 years ago as the dust was clearing from the Obamacare implementation, the impact of this started showing up in the polls.Continue reading…

Whose Voice Is Missing in the Health Reform Debate?

Nov 1, 2018

By Jared Rhoads

According to an article in the current Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, public opinion polls on health reform are at best incomplete and at worst misleading due to a systematic bias in non-responses. [1] Authors Berinsky and Margolis argue that, in the context of the healthcare debate at least, non-responses (e.g., answers like “Don’t know”) are more likely to come from individuals of lower socioeconomic status, and that “these same individuals who are victims of resource inequalities are natural supporters of the welfare state and, therefore, are more likely to back health care reform.”

The authors write that, to ensure full representation of views, nonresponses should not be ignored. Instead, the analysis “should incorporate information from respondents’ answers to other questions on the survey to understand what they might have said had they answered the question.”

Imputing the views and attitudes of non-respondents is a generally acceptable method for removing bias, provided it is done carefully using suitable assumptions. Berinsky and Margolis use income as the predictive variable. According to their analysis, for example, people making less than $30,000 annually are more likely to support health reform than those making more than $100,000.