A CBS news poll, conducted in September of 2007, found that 55% of the electorate supports national, single-payer health care. The question was:

"Which do you think would be better for the country: having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, or keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance?"

In February, the number of people who supported it was 47% - less, but still close to a majority. I wonder to what extent Michael Moore's movie Sicko had an impact on the numbers - which are nonetheless high, given the almost complete lack of articulate support in the media for the idea. The NY Times had an editorial on Nov 25th about health care, in which they discuss Single-Payer as follows:

[Single-Payer] would let the government offset the price-setting strength of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, eliminate much of the waste due to a multiplicity of private insurance plans, and greatly cut administrative costs.

Sounds Great, Right? so, what's the problem?

But a single-payer system is no panacea for the cost problem — witness Medicare’s own cost troubles — and the approach has limited political support.

Too bad that according to a NYTimes poll from March,

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

So what they mean is that politicians - in the health insurance companies' pockets - don't support it, against the wishes of the majority of the population. How's that for journalistic double-speak?

SUPPORT HR 676!