Easily falsifiable claim.
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.
Easily falsifiable claim.
https://www.kff.org/slideshow/publi...ns-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/
Easily falsifiable claim.
https://www.kff.org/slideshow/publi...ns-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/
I mean your own slide show shows 58% of people oppose ending all private insurance.
Those polls are highly misleading as support breaks down as soon as you start talking about any of the details of the plan.
Those polls are highly misleading as support breaks down as soon as you start talking about any of the details of the plan.
. 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.
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.
The analogy is pretty clear. Medicare for All has become a catchall term for universal health care. Don’t be dense.
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
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.
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:
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.