Home
I keep hearing those who support "Medicare for all" or universal healthcare being described as radical or far left, and yet, I've been seeing polling that says people support universal healthcare on a popular support basis.
Just saw a new poll that says a Hill-Harris survey says that 53% of registered voters said they'd be more likely to support a presidential candidate who supports expanding Medicare to all citizens. 24% said it would make them less likely to support that candidate. 23% said it would have no effect.
Is it safe to say this is no longer a radical position? it is DEEPLY popular with the younger voters. I would think that supporting such a thing might be a good way to get young voters off of their asses. When Dems figure out how to message "Medicare for all" in the following way, people will get on board -- "The increase in taxes need not be painful since we already pay 18% of our GDP for our healthcare in the form of premiums, deductibles and copays. By no longer having to pay those dollars, we can easily afford the increase in taxes by simply redirecting the money we're paying for our healthcare into taxes for Medicare." I'm not saying I conveyed it perfectly, but that's the message that needs to be conveyed in some kind of a way that people accept and understand. Universal healthcare isn't even a left/right, liberal/conservative issue in other countries. it's amazing that some Dem or progressive hasn't figured out how to message this in a way that people will understand. Nations with the very best universal care spend about 12-14% of their GDP. We spend 18% and 20% of our people can't even afford care. You'd think that by cutting out the middle man we could cut it from 18% of GDP to 15-16% of GDP and that alone would mean it's costing us less, even if we're paying higher taxes.
Just saw a new poll that says a Hill-Harris survey says that 53% of registered voters said they'd be more likely to support a presidential candidate who supports expanding Medicare to all citizens. 24% said it would make them less likely to support that candidate. 23% said it would have no effect.
Is it safe to say this is no longer a radical position? it is DEEPLY popular with the younger voters. I would think that supporting such a thing might be a good way to get young voters off of their asses. When Dems figure out how to message "Medicare for all" in the following way, people will get on board -- "The increase in taxes need not be painful since we already pay 18% of our GDP for our healthcare in the form of premiums, deductibles and copays. By no longer having to pay those dollars, we can easily afford the increase in taxes by simply redirecting the money we're paying for our healthcare into taxes for Medicare." I'm not saying I conveyed it perfectly, but that's the message that needs to be conveyed in some kind of a way that people accept and understand. Universal healthcare isn't even a left/right, liberal/conservative issue in other countries. it's amazing that some Dem or progressive hasn't figured out how to message this in a way that people will understand. Nations with the very best universal care spend about 12-14% of their GDP. We spend 18% and 20% of our people can't even afford care. You'd think that by cutting out the middle man we could cut it from 18% of GDP to 15-16% of GDP and that alone would mean it's costing us less, even if we're paying higher taxes.
