Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Regardless of the virtues of Medicare For All, speaking just politically (as in winning elections) I think Medicare For All (MFA) is a losing proposal.

    Even with the Democratic party it does not have majority support once you look closer. From recent Monmouth University Poll:
    On the issue of health care, 58% of party voters say it is very important to them that the Democrats nominate someone who supports “Medicare for All.” Another 23% say it is somewhat important, 10% say it is not important, and 9% are unsure. However, it is not clear that Medicare for All means the same thing to all voters. When asked specifically about what type of health insurance system they prefer, 53% of Democratic voters say they want a system that offers an opt in to Medicare while retaining the private insurance market. Just 22% say they want to move to a system where Medicare for All replaces private insurance. Another 7% prefer to keep insurance private for people under 65 but regulate the costs and 11% want to leave the system basically as it is now.

    Those who prefer a public option are divided into two camps that include 18% who would like to move to a universal public insurance system eventually and 33% who say that there should always be the choice of private coverage. In other words, only 4-in-10 Democrats want to get rid of the private insurance market when the 22% who want Medicare for All now are combined with the 18% who would like to move to a universal public system at some point in the future.

    “We asked the public option question in our Iowa poll earlier this month and got a lot of flak from Medicare for All advocates who claim that polls show widespread support for their idea. It seems from these results, though, the term has a wide range of meanings among Democratic voters. Many conflate the public-only program name with a public option. There is a lot more nuance in public opinion on this issue that could become problematic for proponents as voters become more familiar with what Medicare for All actually entails,” said Murray.

    The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from August 16 to 20, 2019 with 800 adults in the United States. Results in this release are based on 298 registered voters who identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, which has a +/- 5.7 percentage point sampling margin of error. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.

    And this is before the highly effective Republican and insurance industry fear-mongering has begun! And this doesn't count Republicans!

    It's just common sense: If you force people to accept something that you think will be (and may well be) good for them, there are going to people who resist, especially when it comes to health care. However, if you give them a choice (public option) then there's no reason to resist.

    Or to use the phraseology of my man, Pete Buttigieg, who proposes Medicare For All Who Want It, you are not forcing the people who don't want (and want to keep their current coverage, warts and all) to succumb. Requiring people to accept MFA only loses you votes.

    With Medicare For All Who Want It, you get the support of everybody who wants to be covered by a MFA system, without raising the fear and resistance of people who are not too sure about that just yet, and who's fear is certain to be stoked by the Republican. And its a really easy issue to stoke fear about! So if people aren't ready to give up the private/company/union health care, they can still vote for the Democrat without hesitation!

    Why force people (which they will see as the government taking something away) when there's a fine option to let them choose? That's just bad politics, which plays right into Trumps hands.
    Last edited by Barry; 09-01-2019 at 10:45 PM.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  3. TopTop #2
    M/M's Avatar
    M/M
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Barry wrote: View Post
    Regardless of the virtues of Medicare For All, speaking just politically (as in winning elections) I think Medicare For All (MFA) is a losing proposal.

    Even with the Democratic party it does not have majority support once you look closer. From recent Monmouth University Poll:
    On the issue of health care, 58% of party voters say it is very important to them that the Democrats nominate someone who supports “Medicare for All.” Another 23% say it is somewhat important, 10% say it is not important, and 9% are unsure. However, it is not clear that Medicare for All means the same thing to all voters. When asked specifically about what type of health insurance system they prefer, 53% of Democratic voters say they want a system that offers an opt in to Medicare while retaining the private insurance market. Just 22% say they want to move to a system where Medicare for All replaces private insurance. Another 7% prefer to keep insurance private for people under 65 but regulate the costs and 11% want to leave the system basically as it is now.

    Those who prefer a public option are divided into two camps that include 18% who would like to move to a universal public insurance system eventually and 33% who say that there should always be the choice of private coverage. In other words, only 4-in-10 Democrats want to get rid of the private insurance market when the 22% who want Medicare for All now are combined with the 18% who would like to move to a universal public system at some point in the future.

    “We asked the public option question in our Iowa poll earlier this month and got a lot of flak from Medicare for All advocates who claim that polls show widespread support for their idea. It seems from these results, though, the term has a wide range of meanings among Democratic voters. Many conflate the public-only program name with a public option. There is a lot more nuance in public opinion on this issue that could become problematic for proponents as voters become more familiar with what Medicare for All actually entails,” said Murray.

    The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from August 16 to 20, 2019 with 800 adults in the United States. Results in this release are based on 298 registered voters who identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, which has a +/- 5.7 percentage point sampling margin of error. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.

    And this is before the highly effective Republican and insurance industry fear-mongering has begun! And this doesn't count Republicans!

    It's just common sense: If you force people to accept something that you think will be (and may well be) good for them, there are going to people who resist, especially when it comes to health care. However, if you give them a choice (public option) then there's no reason to resist.

    Or to use the phraseology of my man, Pete Buttigieg, who proposes Medicare For All Who Want It, you are not forcing the people who don't want (and want to keep their current coverage, warts and all) to succumb. Requiring people to accept MFA only loses you votes.

    With Medicare For All Who Want It, you get the support of everybody who wants to be covered by a MFA system, without raising the fear and resistance of people who are not too sure about that just yet, and who's fear is certain to be stoked by the Republican. And its a really easy issue to stoke fear about! So if people aren't ready to give up the private/company/union health care, they can still vote for the Democrat without hesitation!

    Why force people (which they will see as the government taking something away) when there's a fine option to let them choose? That's just bad politics, which plays right into Trumps hands.

    Medicare for All who want it is another divide-and-conquer strategy.... It ignores much of how private insurers make deals w/hospitals to reimburse only so much and also over charge to make up losses... how it denies care... et cetera... And, does one give up one's voice, one's preference, to choose what may 'win' - based on polls that may be skewed, devised to prove or drive home a particular point?

    Article has good interview snippets w/both Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker:
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...bernie-sanders
    Activist Ady Barkan's "Heartfelt" and "Moving" Conversation With Bernie Sanders on the Fight for Medicare for All

    Everyone should have health care.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  5. TopTop #3
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
    Supporting Member

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote M/M wrote: View Post
    Medicare for All who want it is another divide-and-conquer strategy.... .. And, does one give up one's voice, one's preference, to choose what may 'win' - based on polls that may be skewed, devised to prove or drive home a particular point?.....
    Everyone should have health care.
    well, even though I wouldn't explain it that way - even if it was a divide & conquer strategy - well, that's often a solid strategy! Wishing the polls were skewed doesn't help. There's very little evidence that they are, and well respected pollsters who back them. So if the goal is to get everyone health care, dividing the opposition and taking victories one at a time seems like a cunning plan (tm). Those supporting it have explained in detail why it makes sense to them. Most of the MA proponents explain why it'd be a good thing, which may be true but isn't the point; not if its proponents can't put it into place.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  7. TopTop #4
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    What was it Reagan said? The nine scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" ?

    There are millions of democrats who have good private health insurance who will not, under any circumstance, give it up for some promised government program.

    There are even more who will simply not trust a government program- period.

    And...as I've said before- "medicare for all" will be a nightmare. The government- which can shift views and values every 2 years- will decide what is- and what isn't covered. Just a few things that might change between governments: Womens health. Contraception. Abortion. Addiction treatment. How about HIV treatment? Or HIV prevention "(PREP/Truvada) ? Hormones or reassignment surgery for transgenders? How about genetic diseases that tend to target minorities?

    And what would this do to the healthcare system- where coverages may be tied up in court for years... and where hospitals and doctors have to worry if the services they provide today will be covered tomorrow?

    And...what will it do to drug development- when the government not the free market decides if a drug makes it market? What does this mean for the myriad of drugs that when first put out were, at best, marginally better then existing drugs... but doctors started to realize that they were were far more effective for another condition than existing drugs?


    Now the caveat- most of us are smart enough to know that despite promises- "medicare for all" will never pass congress. the ACA was a thinly won victory- that we've been fighting over ever since. But just the (false) promise of "medicare for all" will turn off a huge portion of democrats. I for one would never vote for anyone backing such a flawed plan.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  9. TopTop #5
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
    Supporting Member

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote SonomaPatientsCoop wrote: View Post
    ...And...what will it do to drug development- when the government not the free market decides if a drug makes it market? What does this mean for the myriad of drugs that when first put out were, at best, marginally better then existing drugs... but doctors started to realize that they were were far more effective for another condition than existing drugs?...
    rats, thought this was played out..
    but really? you think government/CDC would do worse that big Pharma as for developing new medical treatment?
    I also can't quite interpret your posited history of 'myriad of drugs'.. are you suggesting that for-profit pharma has put out a bunch of drugs that were considered of marginal use at best but instead turned out to be really great for other things? I suspect this happens but if it's typical, and if it's something that is more likely to happen when drugs are developed for-profit rather than by pure-research institutions, I'd like to hear the evidence.
    I'll pit horror stories of for-profit drug development vs. disfunctional government/academic research institutions any time.

    (ok, don't take me up on it.. I don't have a pack-rat memory enough to collect stories like that. It's just a plausible assertion for interweb debate...)
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by:

  11. TopTop #6
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Thanks for your comments, everybody, but you are getting into the weeds and morality of health care policy.

    My point is that we need to win this election, to save the planet, besides improving health care. Regardless of profits, morality, advantages/disadvantages of MFA, when polled properly and subjected to Republican fear-mongering, we're going to lose votes in the general election vs a Medicare for All Who Want It plan.

    I'm a big supporter of Pete Buttigieg, but I also think Elizabeth Warren if great, too, but I fear her support for MFA may well cost us the (general) election!

    Please put aside what you think is "right" or "best" and start thinking about the strongest position to take to win this election, while advancing the ball.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  13. TopTop #7
    spam1's Avatar
    spam1
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote podfish wrote: View Post
    ...for-profit pharma has put out a bunch of drugs that were considered of marginal use at best but instead turned out to be really great for other things?
    I believe that Sildenafil citrate fits that description. It was developed to help control high blood pressure.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. TopTop #8
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
    Supporting Member

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote spam1 wrote: View Post
    I believe that Sildenafil citrate fits that description. It was developed to help control high blood pressure.
    oh I know it happens. My quibble was to whether that was particularly common, and even more as to whether that's a feature peculiar to profit-making pharma vs. other researchers. I think it's quibbleable.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 03:44 PM
  2. How the West Is Losing Turkey
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 05:21 AM
  3. Winning and Losing in Gaza
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 07:42 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-01-2008, 09:37 AM
  5. The art of losing is...
    By SEELOVE in forum Poetry and Prose
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-04-2007, 07:32 AM

Bookmarks