brooklynite (51,929 posts)
John Delaney: The Popularity of Medicare for All Is a Myth

New polling on single-payer Medicare for All again reveals that when people are told what Medicare for All actually is, support for it drastically drops.

Polling conducted May 31 – June 3 month by the Navigator Research reveals that 53% of respondents are opposed to a Medicare for All program that eliminates private insurance. The poll found that allowing people to buy in or keep private insurance has a net approval of +46%, while eliminating private insurance has a net approval of -6%.

Section 107 of the single-payer Medicare for All legislation authored by Senator Sanders (and cosponsored by Senator Harris, Senator Warren, and others) states that private insurance for any benefits covered by Medicare is illegal.

The pollsters found that “support for Medicare for All is driven more by branding with the term ‘Medicare’ than by specific knowledge of the program.” Similarly, a KFF Health Tracking Poll released today found evidence that “most Americans don’t realize how dramatically the Medicare for All proposals would revamp the Nation’s health care system.”

A Hill-HarrisX poll from February found that only 13% of respondents would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn’t allow for private plans.

“The supposed political popularity of Medicare for All is a myth,” said John Delaney. “People like Medicare and they like the phrase, but when people are told what this legislation actually does, most people don’t want it. Making private insurance illegal is bad policy and bad politics and the truth is, the leading supporters of Medicare for All know this – that’s why they attacked me. If the truth I dared to speak was actually politically unpopular, it would have made no sense for some people to demand that I drop out of the race, particularly since I had already proposed a universal health care plan that gives every American a health care plan for free, but allows for the continuation of private insurance. But instead, they don’t want there to be any debate at all. I’m not going to let that happen.”

Delaney’s universal health care plan, BetterCare, provides everyone with a government plan as a right, but allows people to opt out and purchase private insurance or supplemental plans

Interesting approach: opt out vs Public option opt-in.
Turin_C3PO (1,351 posts)

1. That's a good first step.

(Or second step, ACA was the first).

But I would eventually like to see a Medicaid for All system. I’m on Medicaid and it covers everything, I have no co-pays on doctors visits, lengthy hospital stays, or prescription drugs. Everyone should receive the care that I get. I know it would cost a lot, but we can afford it, IMO.
DURHAM D (27,476 posts)

3. How is it paid for?
Turin_C3PO (1,351 posts)

5. I'm not an expert on that.

But if a country like the UK can afford NHS, surely we can find the money to fund Medicaid? Look, I’m just uncomfortable with receiving benefits like I get with so many other Americans going bankrupt or having no healthcare at all.
democratisphere (14,073 posts)

2. Private healthcare only continues to enable wall street price gouging healthcare.

Private health Insurance must be completely replaced with a single payer all inclusive price controlled system.
And when it costs more to provide than the government is willing or able to pay? Then what? Where are you going to get quality health care when the health care industry quits providing it?

Merlot (7,214 posts)

6. So people with private insurance (through their employers) will have to deal

with some inconvenience when their employer drops their health plan? How sad!

Maybe those people should consider the inconvenience that millions face without access to health care. Those people need to recognize that their selfishness means other people will die.

The height of IGMFU.
What happened to Obamacare? That was supposed to fix all the problems. How can people not have access to healthcare?
genxlib (2,087 posts)

10. Regardless of how you feel about them

Those people vote. Making their life more difficult will just result in more losses and further backsliding on policy issues. And that is before the avalanche of money that is going to get activated against any such effort

Proceeding against the will of the people will leave us worse off than we are now.
Merlot (7,214 posts)

11. Sometimes you have to proceed "against the will of the people"

It's human nature to be afraid of change, so changes need to come in the least painful way possible, and with much education. But change does need to happen.
Ahhhh, yes. The Democrat mentality that WE know what is best for you so WE will tell and mandate what you do and how you do it.