Who are you voting for president next year?

[Too Rolling Stoned]

any functioning adult 2020

So Trump, then. All those Dems are lunatics.

 

[franklinstower]

Sounds legit.


I’m sure like 150 million totally legit registered American voters all participated in those polls and there were no gimmick accounts that people/hackers/bots/trolls and so on used to vote with because the internet is totally an honest and impenetrable fortress of virtue and facts that these things could never possibly happen. Like ever.


Thanks for setting the record straight on that. You’re totally not at all a naive person or anything lol

Over 50% of republicans want medicare for all man. Over 50% of republicans.

But if you just want to make shit up based on anecdotal evidence take that shit to Fox news or Alex Jones.

 

[MikeMcMann]

 

[waiguoren]

If your too lazy to look this kind of thing up then you deserve your ignorance.


According to a new poll by Reuters/Ipsos, 52% of Republicans now support the idea of a Medicare-for-all health care system, and 70% of Americans overall. The American people are realizing we cannot sustain our wasteful, profit-driven health care system, which costs much more than those of other developed countries but has worse outcomes for patients.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/majority-of-republicans-support-medicare-for-all

You do know that this is misleading, right? The support % varies wildly based on how the question is asked. Bottom line is most people don't pay attention and most of those don't understand what "Medicare for All" means.

By the way, "Medicare for All" is a brilliant slogan as part of an approach to push single-payer. Whoever came up with that one is a special talent. Any idea who that was?

 

[franklinstower]

You do know that this is misleading, right? The support % varies wildly based on how the question is asked. Bottom line is most people don't pay attention and most of those don't understand what "Medicare for All" means.

By the way, "Medicare for All" is a brilliant slogan as part of an approach to push single-payer. Whoever came up with that one is a special talent. Any idea who that was?

Your right man from the lying piece of shit crowd, the framing does change the answer, like when you say "Do you want to kick thousands of people off of health care plans they love and worked hard for to shift to medicare for all that will cost ten trillion over the next ten years?" that kind of changes the answer.

But if you say "Do you want to provide quality expanded health care that coves everything medicare covers but expands it and makes it better, that will cont less than we already spend?" you get a different answer obviously.

You HAVE to lie and mainframe and omit facts to get a majority that doesn't want medicare for all dummy.

 

[waiguoren]

Your right man from the lying piece of shit crowd, the framing does change the answer, like when you say "Do you want to kick thousands of people off of health care plans they love and worked hard for to shift to medicare for all that will cost ten trillion over the next ten years?" that kind of changes the answer.

But if you say "Do you want to provide quality expanded health care that coves everything medicare covers but expands it and makes it better, that will cont less than we already spend?" you get a different answer obviously.

You HAVE to lie and mainframe and omit facts to get a majority that doesn't want medicare for all dummy.

Your frame isn't reasonable though. A neutral frame would be something like,

"Would you support or oppose expanding Medicare over a period of four years to cover all US citizens regardless of ability to pay, eliminating all out-of-pocket expenses and all premiums, at a cost to the US treasury of approximately $30 trillion over 10 years?"

I'm interested in seeing how people respond to that.

 

[xcvbn]

any functioning adult 2020

That’s the metric that brought us Trump

 

[franklinstower]

Your frame isn't reasonable though. A neutral frame would be something like,

"Would you support or oppose expanding Medicare over a period of four years to cover all US citizens regardless of ability to pay, eliminating all out-of-pocket expenses and all premiums, at a cost to the US treasury of approximately $30 trillion over 10 years?"

I'm interested in seeing how people respond to that.

That is a lie too. It wont cost the US treasury anything dummy. Read Elizabeth Warrens new proposal. All the numbers are provided for. You are wrong again because you watch fake news....

 

[waiguoren]

It wont cost the US treasury anything dummy

Elizabeth Warren's analysts have estimated that the cost to the US Treasury of her M4A program would be $20.5 trillion over 10 years. The Warren campaign has offered a new system of taxation to attempt to cover this new cost. So again, your framing is missing the cost to the Treasury of the M4A proposal.

 

[franklinstower]

Elizabeth Warren's analysts have estimated that the cost to the US Treasury of her M4A program would be $20.5 trillion over 10 years. The Warren campaign has offered a new system of taxation to attempt to cover this new cost. So again, your framing is missing the cost to the Treasury of the M4A proposal.

Oh good you have branched away from fake news in order to find real information.


Her new taxing will cover all of the cost dummy. And after all this time you'd think you could have read enough of it to know that. She can cover ALL the costs easily and not raise taxes on the middle class at all.


In fact she will give the middle class a raises because the money employers are putting towards health care is meant to go into employees pockets and not just get written off.

 

[waiguoren]

Her new taxing will cover all of the cost dummy. And after all this time you'd think you could have read enough of it to know that. She can cover ALL the costs easily and not raise taxes on the middle class at all.

Yes, her new plan purports to cover the whole alleged $20.5 trillion cost of Medicare for All. I never wrote otherwise.

The point that seems not to be registering with you is that many people responding to poll questions about Medicare for All are likely to answer differently when they hear that the new program will cost the Treasury at least $20.5 trillion over 10 years. Example:

A: "Do you support Medicare for All?"

B: "Do you support Medicare for All, a new federal government program that would cost the US Treasury $20.5 trillion over 10 years funded by a new tax on employers?"

My point this entire time has been that you're going to get wildly different rates of support depending on which framing you use.

 

[franklinstower]

Yes, her new plan purports to cover the whole alleged $20.5 trillion cost of Medicare for All. I never wrote otherwise.

The point that seems not to be registering with you is that many people responding to poll questions about Medicare for All are likely to answer differently when they hear that the new program will cost the Treasury at least $20.5 trillion over 10 years. Example:

A: "Do you support Medicare for All?"

B: "Do you support Medicare for All, a new federal government program that would cost the US Treasury $20.5 trillion over 10 years funded by a new tax on employers?"

My point this entire time has been that you're going to get wildly different rates of support depending on which framing you use.

Its not going to cost the treasury anything stupid. Its totally paid for and when people here where the money is coming from they tend to respond very positively actually.

Over 50% of republicans support the bill and 70% of democrats support the bill.

You guys have lost the ideological battle and so now all you have is shitty dishonest framing in order to try and sell yours.

This is easy to see. Just look at how corporate media, and all republicans cover the issue by talking about the cost of it but then failing to mention we spend more already. All of the framing is dishonest, you know why? Because when it is framed honestly people want the policy.

This is not up for debate man. You lost, get over it.

 

[waiguoren]

Its not going to cost the treasury anything stupid. Its totally paid for and when people here where the money is coming from they tend to respond very positively actually.

Over 50% of republicans support the bill and 70% of democrats support the bill.

You guys have lost the ideological battle and so now all you have is shitty dishonest framing in order to try and sell yours.

This is easy to see. Just look at how corporate media, and all republicans cover the issue by talking about the cost of it but then failing to mention we spend more already. All of the framing is dishonest, you know why? Because when it is framed honestly people want the policy.

This is not up for debate man. You lost, get over it.

Again, the average voter is just not aware of even the most basic details, so you're going to get wildly different results depending on how the question is asked.

More evidence here:

The last framing doesn't even mention cost to the Treasury or taxation and support is already down to 55%.

 

[franklinstower]

Just mentioning that Medicare-For-All would eliminate private health insurance appears to cause support to fall to 37%. I'm sure that if the pollster adds that "patients could keep their doctors", support would rise somewhat.

Again, the average voter is just not aware of even the most basic details, so you're going to get wildly different results depending on how the question is asked.

This is a prime example of shit framing.

Eliminating private health insurance only sounds bad when you dont tell people that they will get the cost of their health insurance back in wages (a pay raise) AND that the medicare for all plan will cover MORE than their present health insurance.

Its doctors that they dont want to lose-- no one gives a shit about their particular health plan unless medicare for all will be worse and it wont be.

It wont require most Americans to pay more in taxes. Where it does its offset by eliminating premiums, something they FORGET to say........ Warrens plan does NOT raise taxes on the middle class though-- at all.

Delay in some people getting medical tests or treatments is also misleading and that is assuming there will be ANY delays at all. Delays are for elective procedures and since that is not said in the question it is a fucking lie.

Threaten the current medicare program? LOL-- I guess if by threaten it you mean make it better then yeah that would threaten it.........

Thanks for proving my point dummy.

 

[waiguoren]

This is a prime example of shit framing.

Elimiting private health insurance only sounds bad when you dont tell people that they will get the cost of their health insurance back in wages (a pay raise) AND that the medicare for all plan will cover MORE than their present health insurance.

Its doctors that they dont want to lose-- no one gives a shit about their particular health plan unless medicare for all will be worse and it wont be.

It wont require most Americans to pay more in taxes. Where it does its offset by eliminating premiums, something they FORGET to say........ Warrens plan does NOT raise taxes on the middle class though-- at all.

Delay is some people getting medical tests or treatments is also leading and that is assuming there will be ANY delays at all. Delays are for elective procedures and since that is not said in the question it is a fucking lie.

Threaten the current medicare program? LOL-- I guess if by threaten it you mean make it better then yeah that would threaten it.........

Thanks for proving my point dummy.

You're all over the place. Can we focus on my point or are you viewing this as an opportunity to rant?

My original point (you can go back and check) is that we don't really know what percentage of voters support the Sanders/Warren proposal. Most are too ignorant to know what they support. They like the sound of "Medicare for All", but don't know what it means.

 

[franklinstower]

You're all over the place. Can we focus on my point or are you viewing this as an opportunity to rant?

My original point (you can go back and check) is that we don't really know what percentage of voters support the Sanders/Warren proposal. Most are too ignorant to know what they support. They like the sound of "Medicare for All", but don't know what it means.

And you are wrong about that and the ONLY thing you can dig up to show different results is a shiftily framed lying poll MEANT to mislead them proving my point for me.

Thanks for that.

 

[waiguoren]

And you are wrong about that

I already showed you that support dropped dramatically (by about 50% in the KFF poll) just by adding in the fact that the plan would eliminate private insurance. That shows that many of the people being polled didn't actually know what M4A is, since elimination of private health insurance is an integral part of M4A.

My belief is that most voters do not follow these matters nearly as closely as you or I. That's why it's so easy to get different answers based on different framing.

I think you're confused about what I've been claiming. I've not claimed that people would be opposed to M4A if they understood it. I'm saying most don't understand it.

 

[franklinstower]

I already showed you that support dropped dramatically (by about 50% in the KFF poll) just by adding in the fact that the plan would eliminate private insurance. That shows that many of the people being polled didn't actually know what M4A is, since elimination of private health insurance is an integral part of M4A.

My belief is that most voters do not follow these matters nearly as closely as you or I. That's why it's so easy to get different answers based on different framing.

I think you're confused about what I've been claiming. I've not claimed that people would be opposed to M4A if they understood it. I'm saying most don't understand it.

You are shifting goal posts because I have kicked you lying ass post after post.

Support only drops from eliminating private health insurance when you DONT tell them the rest of the story. Basically you have to lie.

Support goes up when you tell the truth.

 

[waiguoren]

You are shifting goal posts because I have kicked you lying ass post after post.

No. I've claimed the exact same thing the whole time. You're adding meaning to my words that wasn't there. Reminds me of @Jack V Savage , actually. Also, what did I "lie" about?

Support only drops from eliminating private health insurance when you DONT tell them the rest of the story. Basically you have to lie.

I think that's silly. It's impossible to "tell them the rest of the story" in the limited time of a poll question. The bill will ultimately be over 2,000 pages long if it ever comes close to the president's desk. Elimination of private insurance is a key part of the proposal, and if people already knew what M4A was, then their support wouldn't fall off by 50% at the mere mention of that elimination.

 

[franklinstower]

No. I've claimed the exact same thing the whole time. You're adding meaning to my words that wasn't there. Reminds me of @Jack V Savage , actually. Also, what did I "lie" about?


I think that's silly. It's impossible to "tell them the rest of the story" in the limited time of a poll question. The bill will ultimately be over 2,000 pages long if it ever comes close to the president's desk. Elimination of private insurance is a key part of the proposal, and if people knew what M4A was then their support wouldn't fall off by 50% at the mere mention of that elimination.