Yet another poll, this one released on Tuesday, shows significant support for Medicare for All as Americans grapple with rising healthcare costs and the Trump administration and congressional Republicans target federal programs upon which tens of millions of people rely.

A plurality (43%) of respondents to the latest Axios-Ipsos American Health Index said they support replacing private health insurance with a government-run Medicare for All system, compared with 24% who oppose the idea. Another 32% were unsure, leaving supporters outnumbering opponents by nearly two to one. Two-thirds of respondents also backed increased federal spending to reduce healthcare costs.

all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 1 day ago

If you ever think we're a democracy, keep in mind over 90% of Democrats, 60% of Independents, and even 40% of Republicans want universal healthcare, and they've wanted it for decades.

Nothing fancy, just something every country in the EU has, and Japan, and Korea, and Australia and Canada, etc.

But, for some mysterious reason, the USA can't get it done. It's one of the greatest mysteries of science.

On a side note, did you know...

During the 2018 election cycle, members of this industry gave $225 million to federal candidates, outside money groups and parties.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago

    You're arguing the wrong point in the wrong place. That people want it isn't the problem. That it's affordable is not the problem. That your medical industry is for profit, is the problem. That money is being made is the problem. That people are so cruel and selfish, they fight to keep making money off of your misfortune, is the problem. That politicians are beholden to corporate interests is the problem. Fight the actual problem, not the symptom.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 days ago

    It's been a couple of decades now since it's caclulated that universal healthcare would actually save money, so it's only enriching billionaires and fascism keeping us from doing it.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 days ago (11 children)

    Won't you think about those poor billionaires?? How are they suppose to upkeep their 2 yachts, their primary residence and 4 vacation homes and STILL go on extravagant vacations 8 times a year? You selfish pricks want FREE healthcare? Christ sakes.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago (10 children)

    Don’t forget all the upper middle class voters who work at health insurers. If they lose their jobs they won’t be happy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I work for a health insurer. I vote to put myself out of a job at every opportunity and would gladly get laid off if it meant everybody could access health care.

    The entire US healthcare system is a debacle from top to bottom, I'm positive I could find another job at a different nonprofit working to improve some other aspect of this house of cards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    I think they'll be alright. If they aren't financially illiterate they should have savings and they can pull themselves up by their bootstrap and find other employment. Many under class citizens lose their jobs due to layoffs and other decisions billionaires make to protect their assets. Hey, capitalism works, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    The government won’t be able to replace insurers without hiring many of those people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    Not enough of them. There are redundant IT, legal, and HR departments, plus all of their marketing teams would no longer be necessary.

    Even if half those people end up working for the government that’s still about a million folks who lost jobs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Half? How are you going to replace all that with half? It’s management that will be redundant not IT people from different states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Billing will be simpler because it’s one carrier, so a smaller billing department.

    They’ll only need one building in each state instead of one for each insurance company, so fewer staff to manage those buildings.

    And if you don’t believe me, there’s plenty of articles where lawmakers cite this as a reason they won’t just do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    It's a lame excuse. Allowing people to have no healthcare, you know allowing them to be sick, disabled and dying is worse than one sector losing jobs.

    Private health insurance still exists in countries with free healthcare (like Canada) so it doesn't automatically close all businesses either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    The only radical thing in our country is the wealth disparity. At least the rockafellers built shit.

  • source
  • I don't think they understand the definition of radical.

    It would change the US healthcare system at its roots. That's radical

  • source