• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Easily falsifiable claim.
public-opinion-on-singlepayer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage-1-638.jpg


https://www.kff.org/slideshow/publi...ns-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/

That's not what I said nor is what that survey asked.

But don't be bothered by either of those issues.
 
Those polls are highly misleading as support breaks down as soon as you start talking about any of the details of the plan.
 
I find it absurd and really disingenuous the way party leaders and people like ChrisL say people don't support medicare for all, or understand what it means, without acknowledging their own roles in accepting healthcare money, developing healthcare messaging/policy with the help of the industry to attack Med4all , and spreading misinformation about what medicare for all is.

I support medicare for all because it is good policy that provides true health justice in this country, will save countless lives, and it just so happens that it will save money. I think we should do it even if it didn't save money.

When people argue against it, not in terms of policy, but in terms of its current level of support, I do not think they are acting in good faith.
 
I just heard Valerie Jarrett say on NPR that Medicare for All means different things to different people. No it doesn't Valerie. This is an establishment talking point to confuse people. Medicare for All is a specific policy proposal.
 
. As summarized by Morning Consult:

According to a Morning Consult/Politico survey conducted after the first Democratic presidential primary debates, support among voters for Medicare for All falls to 46 percent from 53 percent when respondents are told the government-run health system would diminish the role of private insurers — but rises back to 55 percent when voters learn that losing their private plans would still allow them to keep their preferred doctors and hospitals.

Put another way, a majority of Americans support Medicare for All when it is described to them accurately and without the misleading spin of self-interested insurance industry lobbyists attached.

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/07/medicare-for-all-health-care-2020-presidential-election-insurance
 
Those aren’t mutually exclusive. Kleenex is a specific tissue brand but it doesn’t stop people from asking for a Kleenex when any tissue will do.
 
a two tiered system is coming:

1. basic care and catastrophic care for all, financed by automatic deductions from salary and employer contributions; this type of coverage will suffer from delays, waiting lines, lack of choice in doctors, and general red tape

2. if you want faster and better service, with considerable choice of physicians, you can buy additional private insurance
 
Those aren’t mutually exclusive. Kleenex is a specific tissue brand but it doesn’t stop people from asking for a Kleenex when any tissue will do.

I mean...what? I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
I mean...what? I have no idea what you are talking about.

The analogy is pretty clear. Medicare for All has become a catchall term for universal health care. Don’t be dense.
 
The analogy is pretty clear. Medicare for All has become a catchall term for universal health care. Don’t be dense.

To the extent that it has, i think that is a result of the disinformation/co-opting from centrist dems. Don't be dense. You know there is a specific policy proposal for Medicare For All. Do you support Medicare for All, the policy?
 
a two tiered system is coming:

1. basic care and catastrophic care for all, financed by automatic deductions from salary and employer contributions; this type of coverage will suffer from delays, waiting lines, lack of choice in doctors, and general red tape

2. if you want faster and better service, with considerable choice of physicians, you can buy additional private insurance

3. No one will die because they can't afford insulin.
 
I just heard Valerie Jarrett say on NPR that Medicare for All means different things to different people. No it doesn't Valerie. This is an establishment talking point to confuse people. Medicare for All is a specific policy proposal.

This is just provably false. It is a specific policy proposal, but the majority of the public does not understand what that policy proposal is, and assumes it means something very different.
 
I mean your own slide show shows 58% of people oppose ending all private insurance.

I think this gets at others concerns re: messaging and how the public perceives the question. If you ask people broadly if they love their private health insurance they'll mostly say "meh," and if you ask people if everybody should be insured they broadly say yes.

Looking at the full slide deck it's fairly clear people want an expansion of publicly offered care. There's favorability for a fully nationalized system too, though if compared with keeping private options, that is preferred:

public-opinion-on-singlepayer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage-10-1024.jpg


I suppose my problem with incrementalism is if you start with an incremental position you'll get nowhere against today's GOP. If you start with a more radical position, it's more likely you'll get incremental progress in a compromise.
 
I support a mandated universal insurance/care system that, ahem, reasonably covers everyone. Even if it costs more.

Health care is a valuable industry (source of employment) that's not (for the most part yet) offshorable.

Sure, we should spend money where it's most effective/needed and try to bend the system over time towards better value. All of which requires better/more government regulation. And probably a mix of better-controlled capitalism still.

But I think getting everyone covered in a way that also better controls patient/consumer costs is the first priority.
 
I think this gets at others concerns re: messaging and how the public perceives the question. If you ask people broadly if they love their private health insurance they'll mostly say "meh," and if you ask people if everybody should be insured they broadly say yes.

Looking at the full slide deck it's fairly clear people want an expansion of publicly offered care. There's favorability for a fully nationalized system too, though if compared with keeping private options, that is preferred:

public-opinion-on-singlepayer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage-10-1024.jpg


I suppose my problem with incrementalism is if you start with an incremental position you'll get nowhere against today's GOP. If you start with a more radical position, it's more likely you'll get incremental progress in a compromise.

All of this is completely fair. I also think that the republican/centrist criticism about keeping your physician (omg lie of year!) is way overblown going toward some form of medicare for all. As if people didn't ever get fired/leave their jobs, or their companies switch health plans on them (though I think a lot of people just don't even notice that is happening a lot of the time).
 
My private, employer-sponsored (self-funded) healthcare is amazing, and I'd be bummed if I lost it. I also don't want to live in a country where people die who can't afford insulin. I certainly get that people want some middle ground. More concretely than what health insurance plan people get, people want cheap doctor visits, available qualified specialists, affordable prescriptions, shorter wait times, etc. That doesn't have to be tied to a certain type of care. People who rigidly prefer private care tend to do so out of a bias that assumes it will be better. There are demonstrably better health systems than the one in the US, ones with lower uninsurance rates, ones with far better outcomes and patient happiness. We tend to make our politics a bit too abstract here as well. The Medicare for All branding is effective because Medicare is popular and "All" is succinct.
 
Back
Top