AIKEN --- A majority of Aiken residents surveyed recently say that federal health care reform should include a public insurance plan, but nearly half say it should not be "Barack Obama's plan."
A majority, regardless of political party affiliation, also think that Gov. Mark Sanford should resign, the survey of 400 residents found.
Robert Botsch, a political science professor at University of South Carolina Aiken, and his political science research and methods class conducted the telephone survey, titled Public Opinion in Aiken County: Health Care Reform and the Fate of Governor Sanford .
Randomly selected Aiken residents with home phone numbers listed in the AT&T telephone directory were contacted in October and November and asked 48 questions, which centered on health care reform and insurance coverage. A couple of questions asked whether Mr. Sanford should resign or be impeached.
About 34 percent of respondents consider the current health care system "badly broken," with 39 percent of Democrats, 47 percent of independents and 25 percent of Republicans agreeing with that opinion. Forty-nine percent -- 53 percent of Republicans, 34 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats -- believe the health care system is "OK."
About 63 percent of the respondents favored regulations that would stop insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. When asked about the government offering a public health care plan to compete with private insurance, 62 percent favored such a plan.
"I thought that was the most surprising," Dr. Bostch said. "They seem to buy into the idea that creating some competition and a little more regulations could be the solution."
When those surveyed were asked whether they agreed with "Barack Obama's plan to reform health care," however, 45 percent opposed it, Dr. Botsch said.
"Even among those who favored three or four of these proposals, more than a third opposed Obama's plan," he said. "Clearly, something else is triggering the opposition. It shows that a good percentage of those surveyed may like the plan (proposed by Congress), though they didn't like its association with the president."
About 55 percent of the respondents said the Republican governor of South Carolina should resign. About 57 percent of independents gave that response, as did 50 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of the Democrat respondents. About 37 percent believed Mr. Sanford should be removed or impeached.
"The message is pretty clear," Dr. Bostch said. "If he doesn't resign, don't waste your time trying to make him. He's politically irrelevant, and legislators need to worry about the things that matter over the next year."
Reach Stephanie Toone at (803) 648-1395, Ext. 110, or stephanie.toone@augustachronicle.com.
SURVEY SAYS
Four hundred randomly selected Aiken residents with home phone numbers listed in the AT&T telephone directory were contacted by University of South Carolina Aiken students in October and November to answer 48 questions, which centered on health care reform and insurance coverage. A couple of questions asked whether Gov. Mark Sanford should resign. Here are some of the questions from the survey:
Would you favor or oppose regulations to stop insurance companies from using pre-existing conditions to deny people coverage?
Favor 63%
Oppose 29%
Not sure 8%
Would you favor or oppose the government offering a public health care plan that would compete with private health insurance -- it would be something like Medicare but for people of any age who don't like the insurance they have?
Favor 62%
Oppose 28%
Not sure/don't know 9%
As long as the federal government helps pay the cost for low-income people, would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance?
Favor 46%
Oppose 47%
Not sure/don't know 7%
From everything you have heard or read in the news so far, do you favor or oppose Barack Obama's plan to reform health care?
Favor 39%
Oppose 45%
Not sure/don't know 17%
Source: Public Opinion in Aiken County: Health Care Reform
Comments
And what is the skew, considering some people do not have listed numbers anymore? I can understand the results based on the way the questions were worded. Notice, no mention of costs involved. People tend to answer differently when it hits them in the wallet.
Were these questions provided by the Obama administration to the professor? I'll wager this professor voted for Obama.
nobody called me!
Again, be wary of http://bit.ly/7jAGD3. This appears to be a scam that is showing up in posts all around the country.
A poll can tell you anything you want it to based on the location of the poll and who you talk to you. Sounds like the prof played this to the max!
Techlover, you're alive!!!!!
We all want great health care for all. Where we differ is how it should be paid for.
And who should pay for it.
LOL...I skew polls on purpose..and I am sure others do too...never trust a poll............
Can you beat this? The article said - A majority of Aiken residents surveyed recently say that federal health care reform should include a public insurance plan. Somebody needs to call 'ole Joe Liar and tell him to get up to Aiken quick! A rousing Republican speech is needed. Rave about liberty and the freedom of choice. Condemn evil socialism!
Boy that third question was a dilly. I wonder what would have been the response if the question had read "would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance?" I see no value in the lead in to the question other than an attempt to play to peoples perceived ideas that this is nothing more than added welfare. I feel the same about question #2. Why was private insurance equated with Medicare? It has nothing to do with Medicare.
If the insurance companies are at fault for charging to much for they benefits they cover ... then why doesn't some liberal business men and women create a low cost/high benefit company ... to compete with the older insurance companies. If they were charging to much, then this is the free market way of dealing with the problem. The fact is this wasn't done because the premimums aren't too high ... the cost of medical care is high and the premimums have to be high to cover the cost.
All the health bills in congress will do is to drive the cost even higher.
Look at the questions above ... they are basically asking if folks want something for nothing ... and the answers are predictable. Now if you ask if you are willing to pay more for he extra benefits ... you will get a different answer.
Grossly oversimplified so as to be meaningless, Ron. Supply and demand doesn't begin to describe what goes on with healthcare costs.
HotFoot ... no it's not oversimplified. The claim has been made that the insurance companies are charging too much for the service that they are supplying the american people. If this is so then then this creates an oppertunity for a new health insurance company to be created ... the Wal-Mart of health insurance. This company should be able to increase benefits and decrease cost ... assuming of course that the claims are true. The fact is, no business man or woman has successfully filled this price gap. The only reason that this hasn't been done, is that the price gap doesn't exist and the democratic claims are false. This free market solution would cause all health insurance companies to drop prices or increase benefits or both.
Most anyone can create an insurance company, providing they fulfill the requirement laid down in State regulations and can accecpt the risk ... the risk that liberal business folks haven't been willing to accept, because they know the liberal claims are a lie.
The real cost of Health care is not on the Health pay side. The real cost is on the health delievery side. To bring down this cost we have to bring down the cost of doing business for those in the health care business ... instead of driving up the cost with a lot of unnecessary regulations.
You make perfect sense to me, ron. We have high deductibles, so we shop our health care. Most people do not do that because there is no incentive. Competition between companies is prevented due to state regulations.
Actually the state regulations do not prevent competition at all. What it does is it makes it more expensive to get in the game. With such a low price markup on the premimuns it makes it cost prohibitive to take the risk necessary to compete in some markets.
Getting rid of some of the unnecessary state regulations would be a great step in right direction ... but just adding another layer of federal regulation on top of the state regulations will just drive the cost even higher. But it seems the Obama supporters are willing for us to pay the increased cost.
KSL - The fortunate people just take what insurance their employer offers and there's no shopping about it. They're the lucky ones! Anybody else that leaves an insurance company to save a buck and buys another policy - they're going to be victimized by the old preexisting condition clause!
gaspringwater ... they will only be "victimized" if they didn't take their preexisting condition into account when figuring if they would actually save that buck or not. But then the preexisting condition clause in the Obama takeover, is just one of many increases in benefits that Obama is pushing ... while allowing folks to believe he will decrease the cost also.
gasp, you missed the point. I didn't say we shopped our insurance, I said health care.
By the way gaspringwater... Socialism is EVIL just thought you might need to hear... maybe the statement will begin the process of removing the brainwashing.
BCG - Civilized society is socialism! But it sure beats a wild and free hermit's life! The odd, off beat and away from the herd people may be crazy but one thing they're not, is BRAINWASHED. That's a herd affliction!
gasp, have you studied the Pilgrims at length?
KSL - No I have not studied the Pilgrims to any depth. I believe you told me earlier that you were a descendant. So excuse me for saying they were intolerant religious fanatics. Witch hunters. But they were not alone in this pursuit.
They were not witch hunters. You are confusing them. They started out in a communal society in their settlement. And it didn't work. So the property was divided and a portion given to each family. And that is when they started to thrive and be prosperous (free market and capital worked). You should read up on the failed early experiment in communism.
KSL - You mean to tell me the Salem witch trials were not the pious Pilgrims?
Not necessarily the ones who landed at Plymouth. Found a quote. No Pilgrims ever hanged a supposed witch. You do need to study the matter. The Salem witch trials were in 1692. When did the Pilgrims land???
Bottom line, gasp, they came to what became America at great cost and stress to escape religious persecution. For you to turn around and accuse them of religious intolerance shows the depth of your ignorance.
Hey Justnuts, for all you know, 100% of those polled were black. And their intelligence level is much higher than yours, they don't ask the asinine questions you do. And cliff, no, the students write the questions, and it has nothing to do with who the professor voted for. Nobody with a doctorate would design such a terrible, flawed, survey. KSL, although I usually don't agree with gas, no, the Pilgrims didn't come to escape religious persecution, that's revisionist history. When they came here, they were intolerant of any other religion except their own. They came over here for land and wealth and to get away from the Church of England. Most of them were from rich families and under primogeniture, they were left out financially, and the land in England was taken, so they came to America. All the leaders were from nobility in some way. The Pilgrims weren't as noble as the history books say.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
