New Poll: 70% of Americans Support Medicare for All Includes 84% of Democrats and 52% of GOP

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

As its progressive wing and a groundswell of new and energetic candidates continues to move the Democratic Party to the left, a new Reuters poll out Thursday shows that support for a key plank of this insurgency—Medicare for All—has hit an all-time high with 70 percent of all Americans now in favor of a such program, including nearly 85 percent of Democrats and a full 52 percent of Republicans.

To read more:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/23/incredible-new-poll-shows-70-americans-support-medicare-all-includes-84-democrats?cd-

Medicare for All is popular because the name is familiar, and many voters know that universal, state backed health coverage is the most efficient way to give healthcare to all. It is the most efficient because the profit motive is eliminated and capitalists cannot raise premiums to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.

[SteveMO]

1. Cynthia Nixon will therefore defeat Andrew Cuomo

Go Cynthia.

[Trust Buster]

2. I highly doubt that we will see such a thing in our lifetime. The current Medicare program and the

Social Security program will be under great duress as the top heavy Baby Boom generation ages. I think we should concentrate on more realistic goals that are legitimately attainable.

[guillaumeb]

4. I think assuming that the problem is unsolvable makes it unsolvable.

It is a realistic goal, and attainable.

[Trust Buster]

5. I just do not agree with you. The financial picture over the next 20 years is very bleak.

[guillaumeb]

6. That argument could be used for nearly any situation.

The financial picture in 1929 was very bleak as well. FDR provided the answers.

[Trust Buster]

9. The number of people reaching elderly status in our country has no historical reference point.

We will be lucky to keep the current Medicare and Social Security benefits as they are today. We do have an unprecedented age demographic challenge ahead of us.

[guillaumeb]

11. Again, a recommendation for doing nothing,

and allowing those who have little to lose what they have?

No, we need politicians and voters who realize that higher taxes on the rich and lower spending on war are the only way to fund programs needed by all.

[Trust Buster]

12. No, it is a recommendation for being realistic. We can't even balance today's budget by taxing the

Rich and decreasing Pentagon spending.

[guillaumeb]

13. Confusing one thing with another.

The 1% are so rich that taxing them to fund Medicare for All would be an easy fix. Plus, the savings in healthcare spending from eliminating the billions skimmed by the insurance industry would be enormous.

[Trust Buster]

16. My position is the same as Hillary's was on this same issue during the 2016 primary.

What has changed since ? We lost control of the White House and the Senate. I think Hillary would agree with me that this is just not politically feasible.

[guillaumeb]

22. What happened is not because of Medicare for All.

And what is politically feasible changes, often quickly.

[infinite_wisdom]

23. Federal financing needs to be disrupted

What needs to happen is a dramatic change in the way the government funds itself. Borrowing from private banks and having to pay back interest is going to end up killing a lot of people.

People like to say the government just "printed" money to cover the deficit, but that's not what they do. But maybe it would be better if they did. Just conjure it up and say it now exists and can be spent, and we don't have to be owe it back to anybody. The 500 billion dollars wasn't, but now it is because we voted to say that it is.

The only risk you would then run is inflation, devaluing the currency.. But there could be mechanisms put in a place to keep that from occurring.

[guillaumeb]

24. Welcome to DU, and this conversation.

Federal financing needs to be redirected. Most of what is called defense spending is spending to defend the empire and protect US businesses.

And as taxes on the rich have fallen over the last 50 years, the rich have gotten far richer, deficits at all levels have grown, and the bottom 90% are doing worse than they were in 1968.

[al bupp]

14. I have a simple solution to the demographic problem...

....expanded immigration, particularly for those under 40.

[Trust Buster]

17. Please refer to post #14 for my response to your post.

[shanny]

7. So are you saying that we Baby Boomers paid double...for nothing?

SS is an easy fix, if our leaders cared to make it so: remove the cap, and apply FICA to all income. Boom! Problem solved. But no, we shouldn't think about taxing the people with all the money, that would be unfair.

[Trust Buster]

10. I am not saying that we cannot win the fight for current benefits to remain as they are.

I was referring to the unlikely chance of going to Medicare for all in such a financially tenuous environment.

[shanny]

15. Our environment is only financially tenuous because we

or, more appropriately, our leaders wish to paint it that way. We can afford any damn thing we want to spend our money on. We can afford to increase the obscenely bloated "Defense Department" * budget by 60 billion more than the remarkably-greedy Pentagon requested without even a debate and only 8 Senators voting against.

The problem is priorities, not money. BTW, if we can't "afford" to educate our children (i.e. the future), maintain/improve our infrastructure, care for our sick and elderly, or provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, what exactly are we defending? I think we should all be asking that.

*we should really change that name back to what it was: the War Department. It is way easier to cut war budgets and rein in war profiteers than "defense" budgets/contractors.

[Trust Buster]

18. No, neither party is to blame for an aging Baby Boom generation. For the next 20 years or so,

Our population will be elderly top heavy. Europe and Japan are also facing this same age demographic anomaly.

[shanny]

19. I didn't specify a party as being to blame so don't put words in my mouth.

I said "our leaders". The 8 Senators who voted "no" on the NDAA included 4 Ds, 3 Rs and 1 Independent. That doesn't absolve everybody else in government who whines about how expensive policies that actually give back to the general population are.

As for the aging Baby Boom generation this was planned for, and supposedly addressed, decades ago (are you old enough to remember when SS withholding went from 7.5% to 15%? In order to build up the infamous trust fund? I am). But don't let that get in the way of framing peddled by those who want to cut everything because we just can't afford it.

We can afford it. We have to get very clear on that.

[Trust Buster]

20. You are forgetting what this thread is about. It is about Medicare for all.

We will have to fight like the devil to keep republicans from cutting the current Medicare program and Social Security program as our population continues to age significantly. I did not claim that we cannot win that fight. I merely said that trying to achieve Medicare for All in that environment is not politically nor financially feasible. I am not some outlier in my beliefs. This was Hillary’s position in the 2016 primaries BEFORE we lost control of the White House and BEFORE we lost control of the Senate.

[Jersey Devil]

8. I fail to see how Social Security has anything to do with Medicare

or how having more boomers on Medicare would make it more expensive to add others who are not age eligible for Medicare from joining its rolls.

[msongs]

3. actually that is only 70% who participated in this survey only. nt

[Voltaire2]

21. Reuters ipsos is a very credible poll.

Did you have some point about polls in general or do you just not like the results?