IBJNews

Study: Ditch reform, add public option

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

In poll after poll, calls for repealing the new health insurance law get strong support. But if the law were repealed, an Indiana University survey released this week shows that Americans want a surprising thing in its place: a public option.

The IU Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research found that 58 percent of Americans want to repeal the law that President Obama signed on March 23.

In addition, nearly half of Americans want Congress to focus on health issues—more than on any other single issue—when its members return from their spring recess.

But the surprising result is that 67 percent of Americans say it's important for Congress to work on “establishment of a public option that would give individuals a choice between government-provided health insurance or private health insurance.”

That idea even got 67 percent of respondents who identified themselves as Republicans.

“I was shocked at how many people said it was important,” said Dr. Aaron Carroll, director of the IU center. He added, “Some of the people who are saying ‘repeal,’ it might just be dissatisfaction with the bill. Why people are really dissatisfied is another question. It’s something we’re definitely wanting to explore further.”

One group especially ardent for both repeal and the public option are young people. Among those 18-34 years old, 71 percent support repeal and 70 percent said the establishment of a public option is important.

The new law would allow young people to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26 or buy bare-bones catastrophic coverage until age 30. And presumably, many young people will be among the low-income households that receive subsidies to buy health insurance.

But the new law also would tax anyone who fails to buy private health insurance—a bill that will likely fall on young people who often rely on their good health rather than pay for coverage.

The public option was part of the health reform bills first introduced in Congress last year, but it was removed in order to win support from moderate Democratic legislators. No Republicans voted for the final versions of health insurance reform.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT