Republican voters now favor single payer health care

[HomerThompson]

Yeah but college educated white (especially women) tend to vote Dem more than non college educated.

More people (especially) women are going to college.

It's not just race when it comes to demographics.

The GOPs only hope is the Amish...

 

[ScottE]

You are right, white people only vote based on race. Its unbelievable the ignorance and self righteous attitude you and your ilk possess. Its comical to me that you are responsible for moderating others opinions when you have such laughable opinions yourself. Keep living in an echo chamber of idiocy.

He typed the words that enough of them can be riled up by bullshit identity politics enough to swing a close election. None of what he said implies that white people only vote on race. Some do, denying that is delusional.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

plenty of countries operate a two tier system, private healthcare aint going away in the US, but their market share should be severly scaled back.

How much do you think UHC should cover? Currently Medicare only covers 80% of charges.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Healthcare, corruption, and combating the "we have the greatest economy ever" with the truths about (i) slowed job growth, (ii) slowed unemployment reduction [both of which, frankly, are natural but speak to the optics/logic of Trump's retarded position in the first place], (iii) falling wages

Can't agree with that last one. As you say, slowing job growth is just a matter of us approaching full employment. Slowing/negative wage growth isn't easily explained, but I wouldn't have any confidence that it has a policy-based cause.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

It's a money pit that will result in rationed care/long wait periods and a big decline in quality of care.

So basically the same zhit they have now but more people are covered? Sounds like a net win to me. Also you forgot to add people dont have to pay 10,000$ before their insurance kicks in like in your mountebank insurance policies.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Assuming enough politicians support UHC to make it law, there's the question of how much should it cover. Should it leave people with thousands of dollars of out of pocket expenses? Or should it be Sanders' plan which leaves no OOP expenses? If the former, private insurance companies will stick around.

If people still have thousands of dollars OOP its not single payer.

 

[Throwin Bombs]

He typed the words that enough of them can be riled up by bullshit identity politics enough to swing a close election. None of what he said implies that white people only vote on race. Some do, denying that is delusional.

So because he typed "enough of them" that has any effect on the overall ignorance of his statement?

 

[curryjunkie]

How much do you think UHC should cover? Currently Medicare only covers 80% of charges.

in most western countries with UHC you can get full healthcare from the state but if you want to skip the queue or get cosmetic surgery you can go private, there is no reason it cant be done in the states, they pay twice as much as anyone else for the most basic service, and get shafted on everything , theres no such thing as co-pays, or pre-existing conditions, other countries wonder why americans are brainwashed enough to put up with it.

 

[Fawlty]

Someone needs to check that methodology. Even using the most favorable terminology, that's surprising.

The methodology is sound, I'd bet my balls. More polling is needed though.

I think part of the difference is the rebranding to MFA. "UHC" and "Single Payer" are both favorable terms with the left. "Single Payer" seems to do better with the right than "UHC" but Medicare For All seems to do even better, as it's more tangible and Medicare approval has been steadily rising for a decade (so it's more likely to be seen as a possible way forward).

Also, I think that extending a proven program has an ideological advantage with conservatives over pushing less familiar, more "progressive" terms like UHC or Single Payer, which causes skepticism. Calling it MFA has the same effect of explaining something in a way people can understand, even if they don't understand.

Just speculation but I think that sort of subtle perceptual difference is good for a nickel.

 

[Trotsky]

Can't agree with that last one. As you say, slowing job growth is just a matter of us approaching full employment. Slowing/negative wage growth isn't easily explained, but I wouldn't have any confidence that it has a policy-based cause.

That's not the point: the point is that Trump is resting on false laurels. He promised to fight for the working class and to bring wage increases. Not only are economic gains no better than were already expected: wages fell further than expected.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's not the point: the point is that Trump is resting on false laurels. He promised to fight for the working class and to bring wage increases. Not only are economic gains no better than were already expected: wages fell further than expected.

I certainly agree that Trump has nothing to do with economic growth and that the long-term impact of his policy changes is upward redistribution of wealth and no increase in growth.

 

[chs140]

Yep. This is one of those cases where if the facts are presented accurately you get overwhelming support from most people. Only the extreemely wealthy and selfish or extreem ideology are against what UHC really is.

Or people with basic economic literacy ... or mild understandings of psychology. Or those that have read a history book or two and see what happens when you centralize power to the government. Stay out of my pocket.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

interesting that the interests of the (presumably) top 10 percent of both parties (the bulk of the social payers) are aligned.

 

[ChainFlow]

Or people with basic economic literacy ... or mild understandings of psychology. Or those that have read a history book or two and see what happens when you centralize power to the government. Stay out of my pocket.

Why would UHC magically work worse in the US than in every other first world country?

Why do notions of “knowing better” trump every real-world example we have?

Why do you think Americans are so much worse at running healthcare than every other major industrialized nation that we’d screw it up so badly we end up worse than where we started, when it has better outcomes in every other country that’s tried it?

 

[ScottE]

So because he typed "enough of them" that has any effect on the overall ignorance of his statement?

Yeah because that litterally makes it not a broad unsupportable generalization across a broad spectrum of people. Or are you actually trying to sell the idea that there isn't a group of white would be voters that are easily spurred into voting action with a lazy "they took our jerbs" platform?

 

[panamaican]

The thing is, it's becoming more of a zero sum game. If everyone is playing identity politics, then white identity politics wins as long as they are a voting majority. They could very well be a voting majority for another 40-50 years. Demographic majority for another 25-30 years, but likely to be a voting majority for even longer. And even afterward, they'll be a plurality. If you splinter the minority vote enough especially. It's just a losing game for Democrats.

That's only true if they all vote GOP, which they don't. That's the math problem for the GOP. If they don't gain a massive majority of the white vote then the increasing non-white vote hurts them. Trump gained 58% of the white vote. Which seems good until you realize that it was less than Romney got (59%). Dems lost voters relative to the Obama years and the GOP's white voter support remained very similar to previous numbers. That margin is going to mean less and less in subsequent elections even though white voters remain the voting majority. Is better to get 60% of a shrinking number or 90% of a growing one? That's the question and it's going to turn on growth rates.

The GOP recognized this years ago and was actively seeking to increase it's minority affinities. Trump has set that effort back and, even under the best of circumstances, he only gets one more term. No one from that dumpster fire of an administration is going to be able carry that torch into 2024. So the GOP has a math problem and they need to solve it long term.

 

[panamaican]

You are right, white people only vote based on race. Its unbelievable the ignorance and self righteous attitude you and your ilk possess. Its comical to me that you are responsible for moderating others opinions when you have such laughable opinions yourself. Keep living in an echo chamber of idiocy.

Nice, I love it when people read "subset" and "measurable group" and then go off the deep end as if I said "all".

I appreciate because it lets me know which people are too stupid to understand words that describe varying amounts. I can scratch them off the list of people worth having a real conversation off.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Or people with basic economic literacy ... or mild understandings of psychology. Or those that have read a history book or two and see what happens when you centralize power to the government. Stay out of my pocket.

Part of the social contract is you have to contribute if you want to live in a modern nation state. Pay your taxes or GTFO and move to Somalia.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

That's only true if they all vote GOP, which they don't. That's the math problem for the GOP. If they don't gain a massive majority of the white vote then the increasing non-white vote hurts them. Trump gained 58% of the white vote. Which seems good until you realize that it was less than Romney got (59%). Dems lost voters relative to the Obama years and the GOP's white voter support remained very similar to previous numbers. That margin is going to mean less and less in subsequent elections even though white voters remain the voting majority. Is better to get 60% of a shrinking number or 90% of a growing one? That's the question and it's going to turn on growth rates.

The GOP recognized this years ago and was actively seeking to increase it's minority affinities. Trump has set that effort back and, even under the best of circumstances, he only gets one more term. No one from that dumpster fire of an administration is going to be able carry that torch into 2024. So the GOP has a math problem and they need to solve it long term.

The way I see it, the more the left plays it, the more whites will play it too from the other side. Especially older whites who are more likely to vote. And Republicans are adept at suppressing the vote. So I still see it as a losing game. But you raise some great points and the way it all plays out will be interesting to watch...

 

[Philo-Publius]

We already operate the biggest money pit in Westernized healthcare both in government dollars spent and personal expenditures. Care is already rationed with large swaths of people unable to access it. And our quality of care is overall pretty shitty.

All of these things you say will happen if we change systems gave already be occuring for decades at this point.

Care is rationed? Not in any sense that approaches socialized delivery systems. I could schedule an appointment with a specialist right now inside of two weeks (a month tops), where it could otherwise take months (and sometimes even years) in Canada and Europe. It depends on the type of specialty and region.

Socialized medicine is not the answer to our problems, and once you convert to socialism there is no going back because there will be no free market option to replace if you discontinued it.

So basically the same zhit they have now but more people are covered?

No. Far more extreme than what we have now.

Sounds like a net win to me. Also you forgot to add people dont have to pay 10,000$ before their insurance kicks in like in your mountebank insurance policies.

You can thank the Affordable Care Act (aka, Obamacare) for that.