Lies, damn lies, and polls.

There are lies, damn lies, and polls. Polls are a form of statistics, so I'm not really changing the traditional saying too much. With all political stories, the devil is in the details. This is most true with polls. You have to look at the actual question asked in order to interpret what it says. It's very common for headline writers and other propagandists to rewrite the question to fit their own predilections.

The headline for a recent CBSNews/NYTimes poll screams: Most Americans Favor Universal Health Care. "Universal health care" is a broad term, but is most often used to refer to single-payer plans and newer policy experiments like the Massachusetts "must purchase insurance" mandates. CBS and Senator Ted Kennedy, in particular, have just recently used the phrase to refer to the Massachusetts type of program. It would appear from the headline and CBS' recent use of the phrase that 64% of Americans now support something like the Sen. Kennedy proposal.

But that's not the question that was actually asked. According to the full report on the poll, the question instead said: "Should government guarantee health insurance for all?" Of the respondents, 64% said yes, up a bit from 56% when the same question was asked in August 1996. As free market as I am, even I might answer that question "yes." It would be more efficient than the messed up system we have now and less dependent on government price controls. I might favor doing it by some sort of refundable tax credit rather than direct provision of services or a mandate on employers to provide it, but that doesn't affect my answer to the question; it doesn't ask how, just whether.

Read on for more tidbits on the poll.

The poll does show some interesting tidbits, including a to-be-expected desire to have our cake and eat it too, and a fairly typical belief in the sufferings of others.

77% are "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their own health care coverage, but so pervasive is the belief that we're in dire straits that only 38% say the same about health care coverage in the country as a whole. It's the old "my Congressman's a great guy, but all the others are crooks" phenomenon. Similarly, but not as strongly, 43% are at least "satisfied" with the cost of their health coverage, while 14% believe that of the country as a whole.

Many of the proposals being floated for health care reform require mandating employers to provide it. This would put a harsh burden on the primary creator of jobs in this country, the small business entrepreneur. Would it solve the problem? Well, according to the poll, only 5% of those without health insurance at the time of the poll lacked such coverage because their employer didn't offer it. The biggest reason for the lack was cost. 52% of the uninsured said they "can't afford it."

They don't provide figures, but Tully will not be surprised to learn that more men than women and more young Americans lack health insurance. If there's ever a rational time in your life to not have health insurance for yourself, it's as a single male aged 18-35. Those males in that bracket who do have insurance are subsidizing everybody else.

The "have your cake" bit comes in when asked about cost trade-offs. As noted, 52% of those without insurance lack it because they can't afford it. Yet 65% say that it's more important to provide health insurance for all than to keep health care costs down.

That 65% is, presumably, opposed to increased government involvement in providing health care, because 44% of those polled belief that government would do a worse job of providing coverage than private companies; only 30% thought government would do a better job. People do belief that government will lower costs, though. 47% think the government is better at lowering cost than the private sector; 37% think the reverse, and 14% admit they don't know.

The poll offers a fascinating example of a really biased question, a question not only biased but loaded with only unpalatable options. The question presents two alternatives, and only two, asking which would be better. Fairly phrased, the two alternatives would be "maintain the status quo" and "government-run health care." The result, only 47% in favor of the change option, with 38% in favor of the status quo, is particularly surprising in light of the actual, loaded phrasing. Option one was: "Government-run system, with universal coverage." Note the lack of any negative words or highlights of the potential defects of such a system (runaway costs, rationing, delays). Option two was: "Current private system, with many uninsured." Spot the difference?

Finally, I must note one more biased oddity in the poll. It asked about the respondents' "confidence in handling health care" towards the 3 leading Democratic nominees for President, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, and towards President Bush. But no questions about Giuliani, McCain, or Romney. (Incidentally, 51% of registered voters have not forgotten HillaryCare, as that's how many people are "uneasy" with her approach to health care.)