Why 'Medicare for all' is playing poorly in Democratic primaries

[brooklynite]

Politico

Most of the prominent Democrats eyeing 2020 presidential bids — including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — champion the idea of “Medicare for all,” suggesting it’s become almost a litmus test for the party’s base.

But the notion of government-funded health care has proved a tough sell to Democratic voters in swing districts that will determine control of the House.

Many Democratic candidates who made that a centerpiece of their campaigns in key districts this year lost their primaries, in some cases getting clobbered by rivals who offered vaguer health care plans or backed a more incremental approach. Democratic primary voters in battleground districts in Iowa, Texas, Kansas and New York passed over candidates who emphatically supported single payer.

“The problem is Medicare for all just isn’t one of those litmus tests for Democratic primary voters,” said John Anzalone, a veteran Democratic pollster whose firm helped defeat a single-payer advocate in an Iowa swing district this year. “Voters are smart enough to know that Medicare for all isn’t going to happen right now, or maybe ever.”

Just 16 percent of Democrats identified support for a national health care plan as the No. 1 issue in determining their vote, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey last month.

[yallerdawg]

1. It doesn't help that a lot of Democrats...

have Medicare or have relatives with Medicare - and we don't mellow and become more tolerant as we age.

This may not be a conversation around the kitchen table Democrats want to hang their hat on.

If it's so wonderful and popular, check out https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1261

[Hortensis]

20. Lol. Yes. Another name might have helped slightly.

But only slightly. Older people vote in higher numbers and of course are far more experienced in both healthcare and politics. But it's not just them.

“Voters are smart enough to know that Medicare for all isn’t going to happen right now, ..."

Nailed it.

[Hoyt]

2. Seems Public Option is the fastest way forward, if one really wants to improve healthcare coverage.

There are just too many people opposed to Medicare-for-All, even though that is likely the best model for the future (with some badly needed changes). Their opposition is foolish and difficult to understand, but it exists and it hasn't budged much since Clinton tried to reform healthcare in the early 1990s.

[brooklynite]

3. Better to frame Medicare as an expanded OPTION and build support from there...

[Hoyt]

4. OPTION is the key word.

[Hortensis]

21. No. You're missing the problem. This is NOT the time.

Our nation is badly destabilized. Even people who don't pay much attention feel a big need to first restore the security and stability we had all our lives until now.

And those who are paying attention know that for over 30 years half the nation has become increasingly socially conservative and accepting of authoritarian government. They have become a force committed to destroying anything and everything seen as liberal. And we are now in the biggest battle since the Civil War for the future of our nation.

To put it another way, you don't upgrade the granite counters in the kitchen with white quartz while the house is on fire. Bad timing.

[Hoyt]

22. So, we wait until maybe 2075 to address healthcare, Social Security, pay, taxes, etc.,

because that's how long it will take to stabilize -- if we are extremely lucky.

I do get you point, but I don't think we wait for white wingers to come to their senses. I don't think they will anytime soon.

[Hortensis]

23. And then there's that 16%...

I wouldn't dream of asking where you picked up that "2075" or whether that's your speculation for 1) how long it'll take to stabilize our democracy? (57 years!), or 2) to restore it after another world war finally smashed the fascist state that is trying to rise. (Btw, even Germany self-destructing with two world wars didn't take that long to rebuild.)

The numbers of those who genuinely believe this is the right time to focus on replacing the ACA a majority strongly support with an extremely ambitious national socialized medicine system might not even rise out of single digits. Just like every other poll, a few in that none-so-blind 16% will have misread the question and others will be grabbing the chance to express anger about CIA involvement in Guatemala in the 1960s, or whatever else is on their minds at the moment.

Perspective: Surely preservation of our democracy and liberal ideals of equality and individual sovereignty has to be our party's overriding focus at this time?

[Ron Green]

5. A public option would still sort people into different groups;

Insurance companies would drop sick and poor folks to let the PO pick them up. It continues the patchwork system we’ve got.

[Hoyt]

8. Don't disagree, but we will get nothing trying to enact MedicareforAll. in fact, many Democrats

won't risk the damage supporting scrapping our current system for Medicare-for-All. I love Obama, but his Presidency was effectively over in many ways after he tackled the health care issue and got the best he could.

[Ron Green]

12. Exactly. It's not a question of, after more than a hundred years of a political leader (T Roosevelt)

calling for universal care, finally doing the right thing. It’s simply political cowardice. The Republicans know that America demands an underclass and will happily allow those people to sicken and die, and the Democrats are too craven to bite the corporate medical industry hands that feed them.

[ooky]

7. This is what I have been thinking too.

Personally I would rather see the narrative to be "Healthcare for All" and extend the public option to everyone who doesn't already have REAL insurance plans through an employer. One very big step to get the ball rolling.

[R B Garr]

16. Exactly. And it's been that way for a long time like you noted. nt

[Ron Green]

6. A single risk pool is a health care system. Multiple risk pools is an investment scheme.

We have enough investment schemes in this country; we need a health care system.

[Wounded Bear]

10. We don't have a health care system, we have a health care industry...

big difference.

[Hoyt]

11. Disregarding the political realities will have us sitting here in 2040 with nothing, griping

about the lack of a coherent health care system. It didn't work in 1994. It didn't work in 2010. It didn't work in Vermont, California and Colorado. I hope to heck I'm wrong and pledge to gladly eat crow dung if it happens.

[tonyt53]

9. Most Democrats over 40 want to know one simple thing before supporting. How will it be funded?

If a person says "tax the wealthy", then that isn't a plan, that is a slogan. If a person says "take some of the money going to the military", then that isn't a plan, that is a slogan. When a person stands up and says that they have a plan that MOST of Congress AND MOST Americans support, then they really do have a plan. Older Democrats worked for what they have and have grown to understand that the way to appreciate something is to work for it yourself.

[TCJ70]

18. Adjusting taxes and examining our funding priorities are all parts of a plan...

...to say those are just slogans is quite dismissive and doesn't allow for further discussion into how those elements play into a funding model.

[tonyt53]

24. I disagree, and for one real reason. NO funding plan has been mentioned except those I mentioned

Not being dismissive at all, and to suggest such indicates that you do not like having the funding subject brought up for real discussion.

[Freethinker65]

13. The Republican's plan to scrap Obamacare and pre-existing conditions and offer junk plans is better?

I think access to healthcare and insurance, and the fact that Republicans plan to scrap everything that is good about the ACA, is a winning issue.

Personally I would love the option of buying into Medicare.

[Hortensis]

14. Long-time Democratic voters are the party base, not

people who may or may not support Democrats depending on how secure they're feeling, or instead how anxious and disaffected, at any point in history.

Bases are solid, dependable, and widely representative of party members' beliefs.

Easy disaffection, lack of pride in party ideals and achievements, rejection and lack of respect for the beliefs of the majority are the very antithesis of a base.

[LonePirate]

15. Be very weary of anything from Politico. They have a deceptive right wing bent to their articles.

They also frequently allow writers from the National Review to pen op-eds which they disguise as fact based reporting. They are closer to Fox News then to CNN, for comparison.

[brooklynite]

17. I read POLITICO regularly...

It covers politics. Both pro-Republican and pro-Democratic. I find that its news stories are broadly non-partisan (I’m not afraid of stories I don’t like) and its opinion pieces are clearly marked as such and take both a left and right perspective.

As for the story in question, it builds around two facts: the results of Democratic Primaries, and a Kaiser Foundation poll. Are either of those subject to dispute?

[Yavin4]

19. It's a problem with messaging and messengers.

Dems need big bold ideas in order to expand their base. Incrementalism may have worked in the 90s and early 2000s, but since the financial crisis, incrementalism is a failure.

[pecosbob]

25. Oh, cool...another article trying to scare Dems back to the center.

Yessir, please sir, can I have some more of that tasty status quo, sir?

[LanternWaste]

26. The only real objective figure they cite is that it's not the number one Dem voter priority

The rest is merely editorial rationalizing why it 'plays poorly.'