Health

5 Things: Public Opinion Behind Government on Health Care

Published

10 years ago

June 26, 2015

Jessica Ellis, right, with “yay 4 ACA” sign, and other supporters of the Affordable Care Act, react with cheers as the opinion for health care is reported outside of the Supreme Court in Washington,Thursday June 25, 2015. The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

EMILY SWANSON, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Americans wanted the Supreme Court to side with the government on whether the federal government could continue subsidizing insurance premiums in all 50 states under President Barack Obama’s health care law, according to polls conducted before the justices’ ruling Thursday.

In a ruling that preserved health insurance for millions of people, the court upheld the nationwide tax subsidies.

Polling ahead of the decision showed that few people had much confidence that the court could rule objectively in King v. Burwell.

Five things to know about public opinion on the Supreme Court’s decision on the health care law:

___

MOST WANT LAW UPHELD

Fifty-six percent of those questioned wanted the court to rule in favor of the Obama administration, according to an April Associated Press-GfK poll.

Thirty-nine percent preferred a ruling for those who brought the case. The plaintiffs had argued that actual wording of the law should have limited the government to subsidizing premiums in states that had set up their own health insurance exchanges, rather than relying on the federal government exchange.

Nearly three-quarters of Democrats and a slim majority of independents wanted the court to rule in favor of the government; a majority of Republicans wanted the court to limit insurance subsidies under the law to states with their own exchanges.

Among people who opposed the health care law generally, 58 percent wanted the court to limit the government to subsidizing premiums only in states with exchanges. But a significant minority of the law’s opponents (39 percent) thought the court should have ruled that the government could continue to subsidize premiums in all states.

___

LITTLE CONFIDENCE IN COURT’S OBJECTIVITY

Nearly half of Americans were not too confident or not confident at all that the Supreme Court could rule objectively in the case, according to the April AP-GfK poll. Just 1 in 10 were very or extremely confident, while another 4 in 10 were moderately confident.

Six in 10 opponents of the law, compared with 44 percent of the law’s supporters, were not confident in the court’s ability to rule objectively.

A CBS News-New York Times poll released Monday found that three-quarters of Americans thought the justices sometimes let their personal or political views influence their decisions rather than deciding solely based on legal analysis.

___

FEW CLOSELY FOLLOWING CASE

In the April AP-GfK poll, just 13 percent of Americans said they were following news about the health care case extremely or very closely, while 60 percent said they were not following the case closely.

Likewise, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted in June found that 44 percent of Americans had heard nothing at all about the case, and 28 percent had heard only a little.

That’s true even though the vast majority of Americans, 78 percent, called health care a very or extremely important issue in the AP-GfK poll.

___

MOST WOULD HAVE WANT CONGRESS ACTION

If the court had ruled against the government, 51 percent of Americans in the April AP-GfK poll said they would have liked Congress to update the law to allow the federal government to subsidize premiums in all states. The poll found 44 percent would have preferred that Congress leave the law as is, letting states decide if they wanted to create exchanges that would allow people to receive subsidized premiums.

The Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted in June also found most said Congress should pass a law if necessary so that people in all 50 states could be eligible for financial help. And 55 percent of Americans living in states without their own exchanges said they would have wanted their state to create one if necessary.

___

CONTINUED DIVIDE OVER HEALTH LAW

In general, the April AP-GfK poll found that 27 percent of Americans support and 38 percent opposed the 2010 health care law, while 34 percent were neither in favor nor opposed.

But there was a significant partisan divide over the law, with 52 percent of Democrats supporting the law, but only 11 percent of independents and just 5 percent of Republicans saying the same.

The poll found 44 percent of Americans approved and 55 percent disapproved of the way Obama has handled health care. But more Americans trusted the Democratic Party than the Republican Party on handling the issue, 34 percent to 24 percent.

___

The AP-GfK Poll of 1,077 adults was conducted online April 23-27, using a sample drawn from GfK’s probability-based KnowledgePanel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

Respondents were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods, and later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn’t otherwise have access to the Internet were provided access at no cost to them.

___

Online:

AP-GfK Poll: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

The Fasting Mimicking Diet Has Many Health Benefits, New Study Finds

Don't Miss

Republicans Push Back Against Proposed Dietary Guidelines

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook. Courtesy of Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oak Temple Hill Hosts Interfaith Leaders from Across the Bay Area

Distinguished faith leaders Rev. Ken Chambers, executive director the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC); Michael Pappas, executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council; and Dr. Ejaz Naqzi, president of the Contra Costa County Interfaith Council addressed the group on key issues including homelessness, food insecurity, immigration, and meaningful opportunities to care for individuals and communities in need.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 14, 2025

Oakland Post

Troy McCombs (from the state of Washington), Elder Mark Mortensen (from Irvine, CA), Michael Pappas, Rev. Ken Chambers, Dr. Ejaz Naqvi, Elder Sigfried Nauman (from the state of Washington), and Richard Kopf. Courtesy photo.

Special to the Post

Interfaith leaders from the Bay Area participated in a panel discussion at the annual meeting of communication leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held on Temple Hill in Oakland on May 31. Distinguished faith leaders Rev. Ken Chambers, executive director the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC); Michael Pappas, executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council; and Dr. Ejaz Naqzi, president of the Contra Costa County Interfaith Council addressed the group on key issues including homelessness, food insecurity, immigration, and meaningful opportunities to care for individuals and communities in need.

Chambers, said he is thankful for the leadership and support of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints’ global ministry, which recently worked with the interfaith congregations of ICAC to help Yasjmine Oeveraas a homeless Norwegian mother and her family find shelter and access to government services.

Oeveraas told the story of how she was assisted by ICAC to the Oakland Post. “I’m a Norwegian citizen who escaped an abusive marriage with nowhere to go. We’ve been homeless in Florida since January 2024. Recently, we came to California for my son’s passport, but my plan to drive for Uber fell through, leaving us homeless again. Through 2-1-1, I was connected to Rev. Ken Chambers, pastor of the West Side Missionary Baptist Church and president of the Interfaith Council of Alameda County, and his car park program, which changed our lives. We spent about a week-and-a-half living in our car before being blessed with a trailer. After four years of uncertainty and 18 months of homelessness, this program has given us stability and hope again.

“Now, both my son and I have the opportunity to continue our education. I’m pursuing cyber analytics, something I couldn’t do while living in the car. My son can also complete his education, which is a huge relief. This program has given us the space to focus and regain our dignity. I am working harder than ever to reach my goals and give back to others in need.”

Richard Kopf, communication director for The Church of Jesus Christ in the Bay Area stated: “As followers of Jesus Christ, we embrace interfaith cooperation and are united in our efforts to show God’s love for all of his children.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

“Unnecessary Danger”: Gov. Newsom Blasts Rollback of Emergency Abortion Care Protections

Effective May 29, CMS rescinded guidance that had reinforced the obligation of hospitals to provide abortion services under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) when necessary to stabilize a patient’s condition. Newsom warned that the rollback will leave patients vulnerable in states with strict or total abortion bans.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 14, 2025

Oakland Post

iStock.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom is criticizing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for rolling back federal protections for emergency abortion care, calling the move an “unnecessary danger” to the lives of pregnant patients in crisis.

Newsom warned that the rollback will leave patients vulnerable in states with strict or total abortion bans.

“Today’s decision will endanger lives and lead to emergency room deaths, full stop,” Newsom said in a statement. “Doctors must be empowered to save the lives of their patients, not hem and haw over political red lines when the clock is ticking. In California, we will always protect the right of physicians to do what’s best for their patients and for women to make the reproductive decisions that are best for their families.”

The CMS guidance originally followed the 2022 Dobbs decision, asserting that federal law could preempt state abortion bans in emergency care settings. However, legal challenges from anti-abortion states created uncertainty, and the Trump administration’s dismissal of a key lawsuit against Idaho in March removed federal enforcement in those states.

While the rollback does not change California law, Newsom said it could discourage hospitals and physicians in other states from providing emergency care. States like Idaho, Mississippi, and Oklahoma do not allow abortion as a stabilizing treatment unless a patient’s life is already at risk.

California has taken several steps to expand reproductive protections, including the launch of Abortion.CA.Gov and leadership in the Reproductive Freedom Alliance, a coalition of 23 governors supporting access to abortion care.