Health

5 Things: Public Opinion Behind Government on Health Care

Published

11 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

5 Things: Public Opinion Behind Government on Health Care

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Community

It’s Time to Lose Weight Before the Holidays

Licensed internist Dr. H. Geoffrey Watson has joined gastroenterologist Dr. Ralph Peterson at Oakland’s MacArthur GI to address the rising obesity epidemic. With U.S. obesity rates reaching 42.4%, the clinic offers supervised weight-loss programs and screenings for fatty liver disease. Treatments include dietary counseling and various medications, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists, which regulate digestion and appetite. As certain populations continue to be disproportionately affected by chronic health conditions, medical experts are highlighting new tools available to help patients reach their goals before the holiday season. Read more.

Published

2 days ago

October 19, 2026

Post News Group

By Special to The Post

Dr. H. Geoffrey Watson, a licensed internist, has joined renowned gastroenterologist Dr. Ralph Peterson at MacArthur GI in Oakland to address obesity, provide supervised weight-loss programs including GLP-1 therapy, and screen for and treat fatty liver disease.

The Obesity Epidemic

Obesity is associated with numerous chronic health problems, including hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, sleep apnea, asthma, depression, joint disorders, fatty liver disease, and high cholesterol. Its causes include genetics, environment, stress, medication side effects, hormonal imbalances, and other factors.

Since 1999, the prevalence of obesity in the United States has risen from 30.5% to 42.4%. Childhood obesity rates are also climbing, with approximately 19.3% of children and adolescents now affected.

Measuring Obesity: Body Mass Index

Obesity is measured using a formula called the Body Mass Index (BMI). You can calculate your own BMI on most smartphones by searching “BMI calculator” and entering your height and weight. A BMI of 25 to 29.9 is classified as overweight, and a BMI of 30 or greater is classified as obese.

Populations Disproportionately Affected

Obesity affects certain populations at higher rates. Among U.S. adults, obesity prevalence is 49.9% in Black adults, 45.6% in Hispanic adults, 41.4% in White adults, and 16.1% in Asian adults.

Treatment Options

A variety of treatments are available for obesity, including dietary counseling, exercise programs, bariatric surgery, and anti-obesity medications.

Common oral medications include:

• Adipex (phentermine): A stimulant that works by suppressing appetite.

• Contrave (bupropion/naltrexone): A combination of an antidepressant and an anti-addiction medication that helps control appetite and cravings.

• Qsymia (phentermine/topiramate): A combination of a stimulant and an anti-seizure medication that reduces appetite and cravings.

GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists were originally approved to treat type 2 diabetes. GLP-1 is a hormone produced naturally by the body that regulates digestion, blood sugar, and appetite by communicating with GLP-1 receptor cells throughout the digestive tract. These medications reduce cravings, appetite, and food intake by influencing the hunger hormones ghrelin, which stimulates hunger, and leptin, which signals fullness.

What We Offer

Drs. Peterson and Watson provide FDA-approved tirzepatide injections, a GLP-1 receptor agonist medication indicated for weight management. Each patient receives a comprehensive history and physical examination to ensure the safety and appropriateness of the medication as part of an overall weight-loss protocol. Dr. Peterson also offers ultrasound screening for fatty liver disease.

We look forward to helping you reach your weight-loss goals and feel your best this holiday season.

H. Geoffrey Watson, M.D., runs the MacArthur GI Clinic at 10520 MacArthur Blvd., Oakland, CA. He can be reached at (510) 562-7467.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Community

Allen Temple Baptist Church Hosts Free Prostate Cancer Screenings on Oct. 17

The summit’s mission is to reduce the impact of prostate cancer through education, early detection, research, and support. It is presented in partnership with The Oakland Institute of Health, Inc., SCAN, Brotherhood of Elders Network, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Alameda County Public Health Department, Stanford Medicine Cancer Center, Impact Oakland Now, Bay Area Umoja Health, Bay Area Black Nurses Association, Inc., and 100 Black Men of the Bay Area, Inc.

Published

1 week ago

October 13, 2026

Post News Group

By Rev. Charlotte Y. Williams, Special to The Post

The Prostate Cancer 2500™ Care Summit brings together health systems, community organizations, and survivors to put early detection within reach

Black men in America are diagnosed with prostate cancer more often than other men and are about twice as likely to die from it. Early detection changes that outcome.

On Saturday, Oct. 17 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Allen Temple Baptist Church will host the Prostate Cancer 2500™ Care Summit (#PC2500), a free event open to the entire community.

. Attendees can receive prostate cancer screenings and health consultations on site, learn about prevention and nutrition, ask medical experts questions in an interactive Q&A, and hear from survivors who will share their stories and offer support.

Screening is recommended beginning at age 45, and at age 40 for Black men with a family history of prostate cancer. All men are welcome, and families are encouraged to attend.

For more information prior to the event, reach out to Rev. Charlotte Y. Williams at (510) 604-5242 | cwilliams@allen-temple.org

For more information on the day of the event, reach out to Deacon Dwight Williams (510) 501-1650 dwight.williams@allen-temple.org. The church is located at 8501 International Blvd., Oakland, CA 94621 The service is free and free parking and refreshments will be provided. The site is accessible to persons with disabilities. To pre-register, go to Allen-Temple.org

Allen Temple Baptist Church was organized in 1919 in Oakland. For 107 years, ATBC has served as a bright beacon of faith, hope, and love beyond its’ four walls. Allen Temple is committed to sharing the love of God and the message of Good News throughout the world. We welcome people of all ages and cultural backgrounds as we joyfully celebrate worship and fellowship, and carry out ministries of evangelism, discipleship, education, community outreach, and global missions. Allen Temple’s holistic, prophetic and social justice ministries address the needs of the whole person as well as the whole community. Dr. Jacqueline A. Thompson.

Rev. Charlotte Y. Williams is the minister and director of Communications at Allen Temple Baptist Church.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Business

OP-ED: Proposition 44 Would Put a Price on Trust

The danger in Proposition 44 is not only its 90 percent figure. It is that the meaning of “qualifying” spending will be worked out later. A clinic preparing a budget today may not know whether a navigator, health educator, transportation program, outreach worker, technology upgrade, or other patient-support service will be counted the way it expects. Yet the financial consequence of getting it wrong could be immediate.

Published

2 weeks ago

October 6, 2026

Post News Group

Oakland’s public conversation about health care must begin with a simple truth: a doctor’s appointment is not the same thing as access to care.

For a mother juggling work and child care, access may mean a text-message reminder, a bus pass, an evening appointment, or someone who can explain what Medi-Cal covers. For an older patient managing diabetes, it may mean help scheduling a specialist visit and understanding new medications. For a family that has been dismissed or misunderstood in medical settings, access may begin with meeting a community health worker who knows the neighborhood, speaks their language, and treats their concerns with respect.

Community health clinics make that kind of care possible. They are part medical provider, part navigator, part educator, and part trusted local institution. Proposition 44 threatens to narrow the definition of what counts as patient care in a way that could undermine the very supports that allow patients to receive it.

The statewide measure would require covered nonprofit community clinics to spend at least 90 percent of their annual revenue on health care or qualifying program services. The ballot measure directs the Attorney General to establish more detailed guidance on what expenses qualify. Clinics that do not meet the threshold could face penalties for the difference. The Legislative Analyst’s Office reports that affected clinics currently spend an average of about 80 percent of revenue on health care services.

A percentage may look like a clean measure of accountability. But health care is not cleanly divided between what happens inside an examination room and everything that enables a patient to enter one.

Consider the work that happens before and after a visit. Clinic staff maintain confidential patient records. They follow up after missed appointments. They keep information systems secure. They recruit and train employees in an expensive and competitive health care labor market. They coordinate referrals, process claims, purchase supplies, maintain buildings, and make certain that patients are not lost somewhere between diagnosis and treatment.

Oakland families should not be asked to accept the fiction that these functions are unrelated to care.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office says clinics falling short of the requirement could be required to pay the shortfall amount to the state and could seek to recover the money only if they show compliance within five years. The same analysis estimates state enforcement costs in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, supported by fees.

That is a troubling arrangement for organizations that are expected to provide care to people with the fewest alternatives.

Oakland has learned that trust is not built through slogans. It is built when a patient is listened to, when a parent can secure an appointment for a child, when a clinic returns a call, and when a person receives help without being shamed for their income, insurance, language, immigration history, or prior experience with the system.

For Black residents in particular, trustworthy care is not an abstract goal. Persistent inequities in health outcomes and patient treatment are real. Community-centered clinics can help bridge the gap with culturally responsive staff, patient navigators, behavioral-health programs, and partnerships that understand the conditions shaping health outside the clinic door.

Proposition 44 could pressure providers to treat those supports as expendable because they do not fit neatly into a state-enforced formula. That would be a mistake.

Accountability is necessary. Clinics that receive public resources should be transparent, well governed, and focused on their mission. But good oversight asks whether patients are being served well, whether money is managed responsibly, and whether communities can obtain needed care. It should not rely on a rigid ratio that may punish clinics for doing the hard work of reaching people who need more than a brief medical encounter.

A broad coalition of providers and community organizations opposes Proposition 44, including the California Primary Care Association, the California Medical Association, the California Hospital Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the California Teachers Association.

Oakland needs health policy that expands the circle of care. Proposition 44 risks drawing that circle smaller.

The Oakland Post editorial board urges a No vote on Proposition 44.