Skip to main content

What Polls Say About Our Attitude Toward Health Reform and Mental Illness

What did the politician say after bumping his head while walking along a sidewalk as he waved to his constituents?   “I never look at the poles.”
Whether political leaders admit to looking at the polls or not, when you look beyond the headlines some current polls are saying a lot about how people feel about health and mental health policy issues. 
In the spirit of post-State of the Union bipartisanship, let’s hope that President Obama and Congressional leaders use three recent polls to listen to us about health reform, and to educate us about mental illness.
First, this is what the President and members of Congress will hear if they listen to what people are telling pollsters about the health reform law.
  • We like a number of the elements of health reform, and don’t want them repealed.
  • We’re not afraid that health reform will affect our existing health coverage.
  • We don’t think the current law went too far.
The headlines from three January polls suggest that we remain divided about the reform law, with slightly more opposing it than favoring it. 
A Rasmussen survey found that 53% of voters favor repealing the law and 43% do not.  In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 50% said they opposed the health reform law versus 45% who favored it.  An AP-GfK poll found the public evenly split on the new law, with 41% saying they opposed it and 40% saying they favored it. 
But when we listen beyond the headlines, we hear a different voice. 
In the AP-GfK Poll, only 26% supported repealing the law in its entirety.  An earlier Rasmussen poll also found a minority for full repeal of the law – 39%. In the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 18% said that they favored total repeal. 
Support for full repeal isn't very high, and the reason is that we like many parts of the new law.  In the AP-GfK poll, the public supported by 50%-34% the prohibition on insurers denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions (such as cancer, mental illness, diabetes, and heart disease), and by 59%-34% the prohibition on insurers cancelling coverage because someone becomes sick.
We're also not afraid that the law is going to have an adverse effect on insurance we have and like.  In the Rasmussen poll, only 34% said that they thought the law was likely to force them to change their existing coverage.  
There are also a lot of people who think that the law should go farther.  In the ABC Poll, one in four said that the reason they opposed the law was because it didn’t go far enough.  Over half of those who supported it agreed with them, also favoring a reform law that would go farther than the current one does. 
source: ABC News/Wash Post Poll 1/11
These are a lot of numbers to absorb all at once, but the bottom line is pretty straightforward, and paints a far different picture from the headline.  35% said the law went too far, 19% said it was just right, and a slight plurality – 38% - said it didn’t go far enough. 
Politicians who ignore this message do so at their own peril. 
Second, here is why the President and members of Congress need to provide leadership in educating us about mental illness in the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy.
  • We believe erroneously that mental illness causes violence. 
Some people with mental illness commit violent acts, but mental illness is not usually the reason.  One quarter of our population has a diagnosable mental illness each year, and this group is no more likely to be violent than the other three quarters.  Substance abuse (but not substance abuse treatment), juvenile detention, physical abuse, and past history of violence are predictors of future violent behavior, but mental illness is not. 
We need leaders who are willing to speak that truth to us.    
As was noted by researchers at the University of Tulsa in 2008, media reporting on events like the Tucson shooting makes a difference in how people react to the event, contributes to misperceptions about people with mental illness, and deflects attention away from the actual context of violent acts.  
Leaders need to speak up before our responses to violence do more harm than good.
In the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 83% said that they would support increasing federal funding to add people treated for mental illness to the federal gun registry in an effort to prevent them from buying guns, and 71% said that they would support this for people treated for substance abuse.
source: ABC News/Wash Post Poll 1/11

We are so scared of mental illness that 83% of us would waste precious tax dollars creating a registry that would violate the confidentiality of one quarter of our population while doing nothing to address the real causes of violence in our society.
That’s hard to understand, but I guess we all bump into polls sometimes and come up rubbing our heads.

If you like this blog, become a follower or subscribe to it, and help get the word out by sharing it with friends and associates!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Missing Mental Health Element in the Ferguson Story

By now, everyone has heard the news from Ferguson, Missouri.  An unarmed 18 year old named Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer.  Michael Brown was black. Some of the events surrounding the shooting are in dispute.  But what isn’t in dispute is that for the past two weeks, a community has been torn apart by race – a community that until recently was best known for its proximity to St. Louis and its designation as a Playful City, USA . Picture credit: Health Affairs Media reports since the August 9 th shooting have focused almost entirely on one angle – race relations.  We’ve heard about unrest in the city, the National Guard, police in riot gear, and danger in the streets.  We’ve heard about the District Attorney’s ties to law enforcement, and concerns that a too-white Grand Jury may be racially motivated not to indict the police officer involved in the deadly shooting. But the media have been strangely silent about a different angle – this comm

Celebrating Larissa Gionfriddo Podermanski Five Years Later

My daughter Larissa died of Metastatic Breast Cancer five years ago, in May of 2018.  She had only two wishes at the end. One was that we plant a tree for her. We did - in a Middletown CT city park - and it has grown straight and tall. The other was that she not be forgotten. Larissa's family and friends took pains to reassure that she could not be forgotten. If you were fortunate enough to know Larissa, you would know why. Still, I wondered how I might celebrate her a little more now that some years have passed, while sharing some of her memorable spirit with others (some who knew her and others who did not), while reminding us why she was such an extraordinary woman. In early 2017, Larissa started a blog called Metastatically Speaking, through which she chronicled her life with MBC. Unfortunately - and through no one's fault - her blog disappeared some time after her death. So, if you search for it now, you can't find it.  However, I was fortunate enough to see and retain

Judgment Day

Ironic. I was not as nervous as you would think on April 23 rd .  Martin, my mother and I drove up to Dana Farber.  All weekend I wanted plan for Poland, Barbados and Florida, as we brainstormed ideas of what could be attainable or possible. I started to realize I looked pregnant… but that couldn’t be. When the appointment began I noticed it felt like a routine visit. Everything went smoothly, but what were we focusing on? It was this: if I did nothing the outlook for me was living three weeks to a few months longer. So, is that my only option, I wanted to know?   No, I was told we can try a low dose chemo and see how it works.   Since it is low dose, they said, it won’t do much harm, but we truly don’t know how it will work. It’s not a treatment we have used a lot at low dose and technically you are in liver failure, leaving you with limited options.   Of course, the goal would still be to get you to be stable; however, this is a blind treatment. We don’t know if this approach w