36 Comments - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:17 am: While I believe health care is a top concern among the public, I think you should look very closely at the questions Rich, as this sounds like a classic poll designed to get a specific result. Celinda Lake, while generally a respected national Democratic pollster, has a bit of a history in doing that kind of thing. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:21 am: Yep, I agree that we need the questions. I’m getting them eventually. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:22 am: “The Celinda Lake poll was commissioned by America’s Agenda Health Care Fund, AARP, AFL-CIO, and the Campaign for Better Health Care.” They got the poll they bought. Any half-decent polling organization can create results that support the poll’s buyers. Surprise! AARP members are more concerned about health care costs than education! WOW! What a shock! What a stupid poll! - nomoretax - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:25 am: Cindy Richards reminds me of Douglas Kane. Bought and paid for my Blagojevich. - Downstate - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:29 am: Seems the poll is just slightly skewed. Education has been the “it” topic of the year and somehow, out of nowhere, health care reform jumps up ahead of it? Come on, if this poll was remotely accurate there would be more than just the Guv and his few legislative cronies crowing about it. Bogus! - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:32 am: “Voters support the Illinois Covered proposal by a margin better than 3-to-1. Illinois Covered is one of the most strongly supported plans we have ever tested, with 79% of voters initially in favor…” That’s laughable. Half of Illinois can’t name the Vice President of the United States, but 79% of them love ‘Illinois Covered’? - one of the 35 - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:33 am: I am also skeptical. Show me the questions. Were utility rates even mentioned? - Ghost - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:33 am: Setting the Poll aside, a system that utilizes private insurance, with a cap on premiums, and has the government pick up the excess coverage in theory sounds like a good compromise on the health system. - Moderate Repub - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:36 am: Its a National Issue, let it go. THis poll means NOTHING, its crap. - Little Egypt - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:41 am: Hey Bill, they’re caving in. Your boy will get his universal health care plan and we’ve endured all of this budget mess for nothing. WOO HOO, what a ride, eh? I’d say we are just about at checkmate, although it’s going to be Blago winning. - plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:42 am: I’m glad to see that at least in this group, the poll is being recognized as what it is, a set-up. While health care is an important issue we need to remember what things controlled by governmental types look like. Even the Stroger’s did not go to the hospital controlled by them! That says volumes to me. - Downstate - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:44 am: I have to agree with Moderate Repub on this one. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not offer some form of universal health care coverage. It’s time for the Feds (well, it WILL be time for the Feds, after Chuckles and his regime are gone) to step up and make some changes. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:46 am: We should watch California which is in the throes of trying to implement universal health care by September. Of course, they have the combo of Arnie and the Kennedy family working on it, which means there are some brains involved in the planning. But it’s not a sure thing at all. Anyway, the whole effort seems a lot more professional, including the guv’s office part. I am in favor of universal health care. But I greatly fear that a Blago plan will 1) maximize the potential for porky state patronage jobs, 2) maximize the potential for Dem contributors to get rich off contracts and 3) rapidly become a bureaucratic nightmare for participants including patients and medical professionals, resulting in the need for yet more state patronage jobs, contractors, and so on. We pay a huge price here in Illinois for implementing any social programs because of the huge “rewards” that the Democratic political machine deals itself along way to implementation. The Jones family must be absolutely salivating. - Anon - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:47 am: The poll numbers are skewed. It is a National issue. If they put the 3% on employers, watch them dump group coverage so the State can pick up the health care tab. Woo Hoo! Hopefully everyone else sees this for what it is - just another political maneuver. If it goes through, wait till the bills start rolling in. You think the State is broke now? - Moderate Repub - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:48 am: So all of a sudden health care, which hasnt shown up on a poll as far back as I can rembember, is suddenly the number one concern in Illinois? Now beating out Education? I have been looking at and writing polls for over 8 years, and never in that time have I seen Health Care in the top five concerns, and certainly never seen it beat out by anything, not to mention a concern about health care. This just doesnt happen over night (unless there is a terror attack), we would have seen it start to move up the ladder in the past few years (like we have seen crime coming back pretty strong), that alone, tells me this is a crock. - Moderate Repub - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:57 am: Cassandra - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 9:46 am: I am in favor of universal health care. But I greatly fear that a Blago plan will 1) maximize the potential for porky state patronage jobs, 2) maximize the potential for Dem contributors to get rich off contracts and 3) rapidly become a bureaucratic nightmare for participants including patients and medical professionals, resulting in the need for yet more state patronage jobs, contractors, and so on. I don’t worry about any of that, and I certainly do not think the Jones family is salivating. What I worry about is taht fact that Illinois can not AFFORD Universal Health care. We can’t even afford to pay our current bills. THis is a national issue. THe way Blago wants to set it up (I mena I havent seen any real plan on how he is going to do it on paper, its all set by rule) but what I have heard is that he wants to do it all through expansions of all the different programs. WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY. He doing just to say he did it, and that never makes good policy. Now he is going ot drive out health care providers (no one will write business in Illinois anymore becuase his JCAR proposals puts health care insurers out of business)which will create his “need” so he cna justify all this crap. I am just getting mad now, i will stop. - Number 8 - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 10:16 am: For the record, the governor has always said that he will not wait for washington to act on things that illinois needs now. This goes back to his announcement speech in 2001. Anybody who feels that health care is a national issue look at the other states willing to jump in and get the job done. Not all have been successes, but it shows that the fed cant get it done and that the states will act. Eventually, once people realize that the fed gov is a mess, they will look to their state govt to get more accomplished. This is what the governor is doing. I’m happy that he is continuing to advance the issue of health care in Illinois. - Squideshi - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 10:31 am: Single-Payer National Health Insurance would be significantly less expensive than the current patchwork of bureaucratic for-profit insurance companies. “Over 24% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, and other non-clinical costs…The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO.” - numberz - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 10:31 am: Here’s how that worked. The Governor’s office told AARP, the AFL, etc. to pony up the cash to pay for the poll. After that the Governor’s people take over and while those groups may have tried to have input, what Rod’s staff want in the poll is the final result. There’s no doubt this thing isn’t accurate. Let’s see the questions. - train111 - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 10:35 am: You know–I have 3 adults, 1 teen, and 2 toddlers in my 3 bedroom house. Need a bigger home–you bet, but my wife was ‘downsized’ in April and still hasn’t found a new job, so I’ll have to be content where I am. New car–you bet. I’m driving a 14 year old beater with 206,000 miles on it, but I’ll have to be content with what I have because of the reason cited above. Why the hell is it that we as voters have to actually live within our means and politicians like Blagojevich can promise everything they want without figuring out how to pay for it. Universal healthcare is a good idea, but the state can simply not afford it right now. Its plain old economics. You can’t promise to not raise taxes in one breath and then promise universal healthcare in the next. A first grader has enough math skills to see that it doesn’t work but our governor seems to not be able to figure it out. Yes I feel the pain of higher co-pays and the fact that my private insurance used to pay 100% after copay and now only pays 70%, but I have to deal with that and so does the state. Stop with all the pie in the sky promises already and deal with reality. Sorry for the rant train111 - Elegius - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 10:45 am: I agree, let’s look at the questions. Particularly before making blanket pronouncements about how “skewed” the poll is. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 11:09 am: People may disagree with me, but in large part the problem with Medicare Part D is not the companies used to implement the drug coverage and the catch-all plans - it’s CMS and SSA. CMS routinely does not turn premium money over to the companies handling claims, and then seniors wind up double-paying their premiums or they lose coverage. If the feds cannot manage FEMA or HUD properly, it makes me shudder to think what nationalized health care would be like. The same would occur with any form of universal coverage in Illinois. If AllState, for example, is tapped to provide some of the coverage, the state would find a way to either delay payments to physicians or hospitals or would bungle the payment structure between the insured and the insurer. But, at least you would have a company providing some guidelines and pressure to the state. If the state government merely ran the program(s) - like Medicaid - the public would not like the results. There will come a time soon when AllKids will become like Medicaid and pediatricians and clinics will not accept AllKids patients. Doctors have a bottom line to meet, and you can’t just pick on people in the medical profession as being greedy or heartless. If a lawyer doesn’t receive payment for services rendered, he or she will act swiftly. If St. John’s in Springfield is stiffed by the state, the billing department waits and waits and waits and then refuses to accommodate. It’s a shame, too, because any altruistic ideas often are bungled in the name of bureaucracy. - Captain America - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 11:12 am: Even if the pollster has skewed the results, these numbers are still pretty impressive. I think public opinion is way ahead of our elected officials in terms of reforming our health/medical care system. One might surmise that the gap between public perception of the probelm and political action could be attrbutable to the huge contributions that legislators receive from various and sundry vested interests. There is no denying that health care reform is an extermely complicated policy issue. Covering the uninsured seems like a reasonable, common sense approach to addressing the inequities and inadeqaucies of the current system until some political consensus emerges about what other changes might be necessary. - Bill - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 11:20 am: Little e, I never count chickens before they are hatched but things are looking up! Thanks for all of your support. - 45 - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 11:32 am: to paraphrase a great line… SHOW ME THE QUESTIONS… - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 11:57 am: The questions are now posted in the subscriber-only section. - fed up - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 12:03 pm: The state cannot afford decent schools or current pensions but health care will dwarf them in costs. I agree healthcare is a national issue the cost of doing it on the state level is going to be to much. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 12:04 pm: For non-susbcribers, the question about the most important thing the legislature could do this summer is completely straight-forward, as is the question “what are you personally worried about the most?” The other questions are obviously leading, but they aren’t extremely overboard. The “worried” question was posed before the legislative priorities question, so the idea of health care may have been planted in respondents’ minds. Still, that’s not unusual in these sorts of polls. - A Non - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 1:49 pm: The “worried” question gives people choices to select - rather than being open ended. So, already you are steering people a direction, even if they could say something else, most will go with choosing one of the options they are presented. Also, these are self-identified “likely voters.” The poll used Random Digit Dialing, it did not pull from a file of known registered voters. You’ll note that they omit the toplines on the negative messages they allegedly tested - so, no way to gauge exactly what they said or what response it got. That’s a telling omission. - snidely whiplash - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 1:53 pm: Money will buy anything, and certainly fiction is a saleable commodity. Quite frankly, I don’t trust a pollster once his or her palm is crossed by silver. - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 2:12 pm: As we all sing kumbayaa lauding the prospect of a governental controlled health care sector, I would appreciate a referral as to where this concept works well. I am personally familiar with Canada, Emgland and Germany. None of them are for me. Success stories please! - Squideshi - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 2:19 pm: “If AllState, for example, is tapped to provide some of the coverage, the state would find a way to either delay payments to physicians or hospitals or would bungle the payment structure between the insured and the insurer. But, at least you would have a company providing some guidelines and pressure to the state. If the state government merely ran the program(s) - like Medicaid - the public would not like the results.” Actually, the exact opposite is true. The Blagojevich administration has been using private companies as a buffer to intentionally deny or delay the care that Illinois citizens need. Take a close look at the utilization review/management, pre-authorization process in place for Medicaid mental health in Illinois. We’ve got multiple, redundant levels of state review and authorization required before a patient can even be admitted; and even when that happens, it’s likely that the outsourced vendor will deny payment to hospitals RETROACTIVELY–after they’ve already received authorization and provided services to the patient. Who do you think ends up eating that cost? Not the hospital–you and me–providers just raise costs and we all bear the burden of higher insurance premiums. (That’s part of the Blagojevich “I won’t raise your taxes” but I will rob you in the back pocket plan.) In the mean time, seriously sick people, who need treatment, are simply denied Medicaid coverage. I know of at least one actual case where Health Systems of Illinois (the state contracted review vendor) gave authorization for a patient who tried to burn down their house but then retroactively denied payment to the provider because “the patient had only tried to burn down their room and it was inaccurate to say that they tried to burn down the house.” On top of all of this, just a few years back, the Blagojevich administration decided it was a good idea to introduce something called the CARES Line–yet ANOTHER level of “review” on top of what we already had, and contracted with a company with seemingly virtually zero professional experience. Forcing providers to deal with something akin to bad computer technical support, the goal was accomplished–a significant number of children in need of treatment were denied by the bureaucracy. Incidentally, does no one realize that providers have entire departments to play this authorization and denial game with insurers? It’s a big part of what drives up the cost of healthcare for us all. - Squideshi - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 2:29 pm: “As we all sing kumbayaa lauding the prospect of a governental controlled health care sector, I would appreciate a referral as to where this concept works well.” There is a big difference between national health insurance and a government controlled healthcare system. While the United Kingdom does have a National Health Service, where providers are actually government employees, Canada has national health insurance with full choice of your own private providers. In answer to your question, according to the World Health Organization, a large number of countries with national health insurance have better functioning healthcare systems than the United States (Considering, of course, that you’re willing to look at objective data, such as indicators and outcomes.) - Bill - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 2:56 pm: Don’t worry, Pluto. Rich guys like you will alwyss be able to buy whatever health care you need just like they can in those countires that you mentioned. Ii is all of us working slobs who need some help. - Southern Right - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 3:23 pm: I’ve been waiting all day for two simple questions to be asked or answered. One, what health care plan in Illinois has not cost double the estimate,while under delivering? Two, what under 65 health care legislation has worked in any state and come in at budget and delivered adequate coverage. Answers…… None and none - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jul 18, 07 @ 7:53 pm: IMHO, one of the ways we could approach expanded coverage would be allowing private insurance companies to offer a plain vanilla policy, not covering such things as maternity, first year neonatal care, expensive surgeries or hospitalizations, etc, which should be able to be offered at a very reasonable premium. Healthy people (and we would in effect be turning these people into health people cost-wise) aren’t very expensive to insure. Our public interest would be that office visits, diagnostics, at least generic drugs are covered, so people can go to docs and get the routine care that they need, ideally preventing more extensive and expensive care down the road. We could pick up mother and first year infant care by expanding the S CHIP program with its 66% match, and we could in essence act as a reinsurer for the more expensive options not covered by the policy. Employers could offer it or pay a dollar amount to the state for not offering it, premiums might be low enough that we would need to provide little or no subsidy there. I’m saying this assuming we would cap eligibility for the program at some income level. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.