Needed Now: A Real and Radical Left

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House Needed Now: A Real and Radical Left

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 47 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #86822
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    “The absence of a real, dedicated, persistent and serious, adult left is profoundly dangerous.”

    Needed Now: A Real and Radical Left

    Needed Now: A Real and Radical Left

    #86835
    waterfield
    Participant

    I don’t think that’s what we need at all ! This country is essentially by history fairly conservative. By moving too far to the left we all but insure a more powerful and stronger right. And with a stronger right comes authoritarianism and demagoguery. And of course from that comes what we not have in the WH. IMO any move to the extreme-right or left-is simply another form of populism that appeals to the popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. I don’t ever want to see a left version of Trump. This one is bad enough for me.

    #86836
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    I don’t think that’s what we need at all ! This country is essentially by history fairly conservative. By moving too far to the left we all but insure a more powerful and stronger right. And with a stronger right comes authoritarianism and demagoguery. And of course from that comes what we not have in the WH. IMO any move to the extreme-right or left-is simply another form of populism that appeals to the popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. I don’t ever want to see a left version of Trump. This one is bad enough for me.

    The greatest gains for people in this country’s history occurred with the New Deal, which the republicans are trying to wipe out and which the democrats are tepid about defending.

    Actually in spite of the myth of the country being conservative, if you go an issue at a time, the majority always prefers left solutions. For example, single payer health insurance.

    Which would save people enormous amounts of money and hassles. In fact there’s no good reason to oppose it.

    #86838
    Avatar photojoemad
    Participant

    The masses have to experience pain to buy into or elect leaders that would implement programs like the New Deal…..which was triggered by the pain and devastation that the great depression caused……

    as noted in the article, we’re due for an economic meltdown as history shows that we’re currently at peak of economic recovery from the great recession of 2008

    gotta have the right folks in charge that have the vision to implement a social view of economic policy, but not just domestically here in the USA…….. IMO, this needs a world view…

    we need buy in from all developed markets world-wide, which is very tough to do…… e.g, less than 1/3 of large multinational corporations are based in North America (USA and Canada), most are based in Asia and Europe. These are the major players that rule the economic world.

    The sad thing is, baby carrot dick in the whitehouse doesn’t see it that way and is currently pissing the world off. Sure, he’s good in real estate business, as most folks that come from money are… but with multinational or companies with complex business models (Trump Airlines, NJ Generals, USFL, Trump financial… he’s just not a very good executive…. We Have Jeff Fisher in the Whitehouse, the Orange One can’t implement.

    At the same time, without a functioning left able to fight and do things for ordinary working and poor people, we will have nothing to defend and sustain our households, families and communities when the next big capitalist meltdown comes—an event that is due in the very near future. Before the coming collapse, Hedges tell us, “We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations,

      local currencies

    , alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town.”

    #86839
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Excellent article, Zooey.

    Thanks.

    #86840
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    This.

    “…As William Kaufman told Barbara Ehrenreich on Facebook last year, “The Democrats aren’t feckless, inept, or stupid, unable to ‘learn’ what it takes to win. They are corrupt. They do not want to win with an authentically progressive program because it would threaten the economic interests of their main corporate donor base. … The Democrats know exactly what they’re doing. They have a business model: sub-serving the interests of the corporate elite.”

    w
    v

    #86842
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    I agree with the writer that without the replacement of capitalism itself, we’re not going to make it as a species, and “the left” is the only part of the political spectrum that gets this. The internal drives, rules, laws (especially of competitive motion), incentives and mechanisms of the system itself all push us toward an ecological meltdown. It can’t be helped.

    Naomi Klein came to that realization not too long ago:

    https://thischangeseverything.org/

    And even the most optimistic projections for an in-system fix rely on something that has never existed under the capitalist system: sufficient cooperation among relevant competing entities, regardless of lost profits, loss of market share, stock prices, etc. etc. That cooperation would have to put us and the planet above profits and all the rest. It would, in essence, have to be “selfless” to the extent a corporation can be selfless. And because it’s on such a ginormous scale — the entire earth — and the problem to be solved is so immense, it would have to be ongoing.

    As in, an ongoing, mass, cooperative movement between naturally competitive capitalist enterprises, with sustained, selfless actions, vision and follow through.

    It would be easier to just change the system itself.

    #86845
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    This.

    “…As William Kaufman told Barbara Ehrenreich on Facebook last year, “The Democrats aren’t feckless, inept, or stupid, unable to ‘learn’ what it takes to win. They are corrupt. They do not want to win with an authentically progressive program because it would threaten the economic interests of their main corporate donor base. … The Democrats know exactly what they’re doing. They have a business model: sub-serving the interests of the corporate elite.”

    w
    v

    Yes, and on top of that, the article points out that they would prefer to lose to Republicans than lose to progressives.

    And there is evidence to back that up. The DNC has literally donated money to Republican candidates running against progressives, and have released damning information on a progressive in Texas, portraying her as a “Washington Insider” {snort}, to the direct advantage of the Republican candidate. The Democrats are merely playing a role in Democracy Theatre. They will fume and rail onstage, but when the show is over, they go to the same clubs with the Republicans and share drinks, giggles, and cellphone numbers.

    Democrats just enabled the repeal of financial regulations to expose us to another profit-grab, and taxpayer bailout. They’re killing us.

    #86846
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I don’t think that’s what we need at all ! This country is essentially by history fairly conservative. By moving too far to the left we all but insure a more powerful and stronger right. And with a stronger right comes authoritarianism and demagoguery. And of course from that comes what we not have in the WH. IMO any move to the extreme-right or left-is simply another form of populism that appeals to the popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. I don’t ever want to see a left version of Trump. This one is bad enough for me.

    No, it wouldn’t. Because if there was an actual move to the Left, the Right would be permanently disempowered. At least the Right as it is constructed today.

    A move to the Left would include doing away with the mechanism of campaign financing that makes our representatives sell out to the highest bidders. If we removed the ability of corporations to directly bribe representatives, the Right would never win. Because the Left positions…as zn points out…are held by MOST Americans. Like….70% favor universal healthcare. That’s HUGE. You can’t get 70% of people to agree that eggs are great for breakfast. On issue after issue, polls show the American public is to the left of the Democrats. On military spending, environmental issues, education, on and on and on.

    If you free politics from Big Money, and allow congress to vote on its conscience rather than on its sponsorships, and we will have different results. I mean…look at these jackholes once they are out of office. Out of office, Gore suddenly grew a conscience about climate change. Out of office, Boehner has just denounced the Republican party today.

    #86855
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    ….70% favor universal healthcare. That’s HUGE. You can’t get 70% of people to agree that eggs are great for breakfast…

    ===================

    I like raisin toast.

    Where did you read this ?
    “…The DNC has literally donated money to Republican candidates running against progressives…”

    Every time i think my opinion of the Democrats cant get any lower…geez.

    w
    v

    #86865
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    If the Dems wanted to run a “far left” agenda, backed it entirely, with no apologies, and no undermining, they could win election after election, for a host of reasons:

    1. Americans want the best deal possible, as they perceive it. The “far left” can provide that better than any other part of the political spectrum, and it’s not close. They can provide the best possible deal, in concrete terms, and no other part of the spectrum comes close.

    2. The right wins on deeply unpopular platforms. They can’t make the case that any of their policies provide the best possible deal for Americans, ever, not once, not ever — unless they’re super-rich. But they keep winning.

    3. Americans can be convinced of almost anything, tragically. Sales and marketing, personality, charisma, self-confidence, a certain presence, a certain ability to connect — these things win elections, not policies. If they didn’t, centrist and right-wing candidates in both parties would never win a race.

    4. Certain parts of the political spectrum aren’t “extreme” due to their distance from the mythical and mythological center. They’re “extreme” based on their distance from reality, from what’s best for humanity and the planet. So, a “center” which supports endless war, coups, regime changes, ecological destruction, the surveillance state, skyrocketing of economic inequality, the carceral state, etc. etc. is the very definition of “extreme.”

    5. It’s pretty obvious why neither the GOP nor the Dems will move well to the left. It’s not about winning elections, cuz, again, they would easily win with a far left agenda. They won’t do it because it would hurt their donors and themselves, being in the 1%. They won’t do it because it would mean the dispersal and sharing of power, as close to equally as is humanly possible, and they didn’t get into the game for that. Nor did their donors.

    #86866
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    On #3.

    I talk to rank and file Dems, and I think they honestly believe the Dems can’t do X, Y or Z because the country won’t accept “progressive” policies. At the same time, they’ll complain that Republican and right-wing voters in general have been bamboozled. I will never understand why they think this sort of thing can only work on the right. That it’s only on the right that voters can be persuaded, basically against their own will, to vote against their own best interests. How much easier would it be to change minds when the proposals themselves are concretely and obviously beneficial?

    Again, sales, marketing, personality, etc. Those things keep Republicans and conservadems in business. They can’t win on policy. But they can win when they put on a cowboy hat, get in their pickup truck, and make a connection with the voters.

    Dem rank and file seem to never get that this could work for them, too, and if they ran on seriously leftist policies, they wouldn’t have to lie about the benefits.

    Sales, marketing, personality. Amazingly enough, the Dems could use those things too, in the service of all Americans and the planet.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    • This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    #86873
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    ===================

    I like raisin toast.

    Where did you read this ?
    “…The DNC has literally donated money to Republican candidates running against progressives…”

    Every time i think my opinion of the Democrats cant get any lower…geez.

    w
    v

    Here are links to stories about the trend, generally, and both mention the Texas thing.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/when-dccc-calls-hang-up-the-phone/

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/3/17290902/dccc-2018-midterms-primaries-democrats-nancy-pelosi-laura-moser

    I haven’t found the direct donation, though I think it was the DCCC as opposed to the DNC, and I will keep looking. It was in a special election, somewhere in the south. I will keep searching.

    #86875
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I don’t remember where I read it, but now that I think about it, it was probably a bit distorted.

    I just found this little nugget, and this sounds the kind of thing that would form the basis of that claim.

    “In the second district of Virginia, the DCCC has endorsed a former Republican, Elaine Luria, who voted twice for Scott Taylor, the Republican she’s hoping to unseat on behalf of the Democrats; she’s not the only “former Republican” whose campaign you’ll be supporting if you donate to the DCCC — there’s also Nebraska’s Brad Ashford. Both secured the DCCC endorsement over progressive Democrats, who were shunned by the party establishment.”

    Don’t give a dime to the DCCC, they’ll just use to front DINOs and smear Justice Democrats

    #86889
    waterfield
    Participant

    I don’t think that’s what we need at all ! This country is essentially by history fairly conservative. By moving too far to the left we all but insure a more powerful and stronger right. And with a stronger right comes authoritarianism and demagoguery. And of course from that comes what we not have in the WH. IMO any move to the extreme-right or left-is simply another form of populism that appeals to the popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. I don’t ever want to see a left version of Trump. This one is bad enough for me.

    The greatest gains for people in this country’s history occurred with the New Deal, which the republicans are trying to wipe out and which the democrats are tepid about defending.

    Actually in spite of the myth of the country being conservative, if you go an issue at a time, the majority always prefers left solutions. For example, single payer health insurance.

    Which would save people enormous amounts of money and hassles. In fact there’s no good reason to oppose it.

    The New Deal was spawned from the great depression. It wasn’t a social invention. It was specifically designed by FDR to rescue the greatest economic collapse in our history. Those conditions do not exist today. Yes people support a lot of stuff including universal health care. But that doesn’t mean they’re correct. Vermont tried universal health and had to abandon it because of the costs. Out health system now is so bloated that it would be impossible to reinvent it. It’s simply too late.

    #86891
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    <
    The New Deal was spawned from the great depression. It wasn’t a social invention. It was specifically designed by FDR to rescue the greatest economic collapse in our history. Those conditions do not exist today. Yes people support a lot of stuff including universal health care. But that doesn’t mean they’re correct. Vermont tried universal health and had to abandon it because of the costs. Out health system now is so bloated that it would be impossible to reinvent it. It’s simply too late.

    ===================

    How is it that so many other nations have managed to give all their citizens health care?

    w
    v
    Bernie was asked about Vermont here, and he does not give a very smooth answer, imho. Though, i agree with his answer.

    #86892
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    The failure in Vermont didn’t have anything to do with costs. How could it? Single Payer is cheaper in every way. It cuts overhead by at least 30%.

    Too many Americans need to take a refresher in math.

    If product or service X requires ___ amount of both taxation and private sector spending, all that matter is the total cost. If our taxes go up, but the total goes down, we get a better deal.

    It’s just math.

    So, yeah, in European countries they pay higher taxes, but they get more for their money. Everyone is covered. Out of pocket costs are almost non-existent. And their total bill for health care is half what we pay.

    You could do a thought experiment with pretty much 99% of the things we buy, and you’d come out the same. If our public sector were allowed to be truly public and all non-profit, there is virtually NOTHING it couldn’t offer for less than the private sector — and do it sooner, and distribute it more widely.

    The private sector will always have to charge more, if for no other reason than its overhead is always more, plus you have to make a profit, pay shareholders and huge executive salaries.

    The ONLY Americans that benefit from the system we currently have are rich Americans. Everyone else pays far more for far less, because of the capitalist system . . . . and rank and file workers will always be paid less because of capitalism as well.

    #86893
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    FYI for anyone interested….

    Waterfield is partially correct when he says single payer failed in Vermont because of costs. However, the Vermont plan excluded large businesses from participating. Therefore, a huge source of funding was lost from the beginning. Plus, they never figured out what to do with people who were already on federal Medicare/Medicaid. For these reasons, one could argue that what Vermont was trying to implement wasn’t really single payer anyway, so their experience cannot really be used as an “I told you so” by the anti-single payer crowd.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photonittany ram.
    #86895
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    FYI for anyone interested….

    Waterfield is partially correct when he says single payer failed in Vermont because of costs. However, the Vermont plan excluded large businesses from participating. Therefore, a huge source of funding was lost from the beginning. Plus, they never figured out what to do with people who were already on federal Medicare/Medicaid. For these reasons, one could argue that what Vermont was trying to implement wasn’t really single payer anyway, so their experience cannot really be used as an “I told you so” by the anti-single payer crowd.

    Plus of course single payer works all over the world in different places and has for decades. Including Canada and Scandanavia.

    The thing that CAN’T be justified, IMO, is paying for private insurance companies who make a profit and have high administrative overhead on top of it. That’s as much as 10 times greater the administrative costs than public systems and of course not a dime of that goes toward health care.

    There are many reasons doctors are for single payer.

    #86896
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    Plus of course single payer works all over the world in different places and has for decades. Including Canada and Scandanavia.

    The thing that CAN’T be justified, IMO, is paying for private insurance companies who make a profit and have high administrative overhead on top of it. That’s as much as 10 times greater the administrative costs than public systems and of course not a dime of that goes toward health care.

    There are many reasons doctors are for single payer.

    And no country that has single payer is in the process of dismantling it in favor of a privatized system, although more and more of England’s NHS is becoming privatized. But as a result they are already seeing huge inequalities in care based on socioeconomic status.

    #86906
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    There are many reasons doctors are for single payer.

    And no country that has single payer is in the process of dismantling it in favor of a privatized system

    There’s this from that bastion of agenda-driven left-of-liberal commie pinko fanaticism, Newsweek. This is not the only article and not the only poll.

    THE BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM? DOCTORS BACK SINGLE-PAYER PLAN, SURVEY SHOWS

    http://www.newsweek.com/best-health-care-system-doctors-back-single-payer-plan-survey-shows-667751

    Doctors have come out overwhelmingly in support of a single-payer health care system, a new study shows.

    Forty-two percent of doctors support the type of federal insurance system currently being championed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, according to pollster Merrit Hawkins. Another 14 percent of physicians were “somewhat supportive,” but only 33 percent “strongly opposes” the single-payer system and six percent was somewhat against it.

    In the same study from 2008, 42 percent of doctors strongly or mildly supported single-payer—a swing of 14 percentage points. And the percentage that strongly or mildly opposed single-payer has dropped 19 percent.

    The doctors are part of an overall trend in support of the so-called “Medicare for All” approach. Overall, 33 percent of Americans now favor the single-payer system, up 5 percentage points since January and up 12 percent since 2014, a Pew Research Center study shows. Politicians are also reading the tea leaves: Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) have signed onto a bill by Sanders to create a single-payer system that would make the federal government the nation’s health care insurer.

    First, it’s generational. According to both the Pew Research Center’s poll and the survey from Merrit Hawkins, support for a single-payer health insurance is much greater among younger adults and doctors than older adults. And with older doctors retiring and young doctors starting to practice, there is less resistance to single-payer.

    Doctors added that a single-payer health care system helps them focus on their actual job and spend more time caring for patients and less time navigating the existing insurance-based system, according to Merritt Hawkins.

    “Doctors are constantly seeing patients that have health problems that they can’t address because of their insurance,” said Dr. Ed Weisbart of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that advocates for single payer. “There are so many people without insurance, and that has improved, but the quality of [their] insurance is getting worse and worse.”

    Doctors, he added, are “fed up” with the current system.

    Weisbart said that the reason he went to medical school and became a physician was because he wanted to help people—not to spend time dealing with nonclinical administrative work. And single-payer, he says, is the best way to resolve it.

    “There really aren’t any other good strategies,” he said. “Physicians are realizing, well, good gosh, we’ve tested out every model we can think of.”

    The Merritt Hawkins survey was emailed to 70,000 physicians and received 1,033 responses. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

    #86907
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    The problem is complicated, of course, and more than just on the insurance side . . .

    I went in for labs today and was told a request for a PET Scan had been turned down by my insurance company. This is rather important, as it was supposed to give the oncologist the best map for the remainder of my treatments. A good PET Scan could mean ending the full blast chemo and perhaps going to a maintenance regimen instead. A bad PET Scan would mean extending the full blast stuff, perhaps through July — which is taking its toll. I’ve been violently ill after the last two rounds.

    (Ironically, the PET scan could save the insurance company money.)

    But I don’t think the insurance companies are the only problem here. As long as our health care is subject to a for-profit model, anywhere in the process, there will always been massive conflicts of interest. For instance, on the delivery side — and I’ve heard doctors talk in these terms — they’re going to basically ask for as much as they can get away with. When I’ve expressed concerns about total costs, doctors have as much as said, Why worry? Insurance will pick it up.

    An insurance company can act as a check on this, saying, We’ll pay X amount, but not X+++. Or it can deny coverage altogether. Either way, there is no win/win scenario, especially for the patient.

    As I’ve mentioned before, I think we should have an all non-profit economic system, for everything, but well shy of that, we should at least carve out certain areas that can no be commodified.

    Education and health care strike me as immediately logical candidates — and I mean womb to tomb/cradle to grave, not just a certain chunk of time.

    #86908
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    My chemo is a bit less than 30K a session now. In fifteen years, as far as I can tell, no delivery-side costs have fallen. None. They’ve mostly gone up and up and up, as has my insurance premium.

    That went up $500 per month from 2017 to 2018, and is expected to nearly double in 2019.

    I’ll need to figure out something else, because I’ll be priced out of the exchanges next year if that occurs.

    It’s coming to a head, folks.

    We need to go to tax-funded delivery side medicine, and tax-funded insurance options. Both. Not just Single Payer . . . though that would be a massive, life-saving improvement over what we have now. It would literally save tens of thousands of lives a year. But Single Payer, too, will hit a wall, if we don’t do something about radically lowering delivery costs. To me, the best way to go is to update the old ways:

    Towns used to hire their own doctors and nurses, and no one paid for their visits unless they wanted to bring them a chicken or something. It was just part of the deal when you lived in this or that town.

    Update this for 2018 and beyond. Have Single Payer for backup costs and certain kinds of long-term or specialty care.

    We’re just flat out not going to be able to afford for-profit medicine in this country, for the non-rich, if we don’t de-commodify.

    #86911
    waterfield
    Participant

    Here is an answer to your question WV.

    Is Canada the Right Model for a Better U.S. Health Care System?

    BTW Sanders is scheduled to be on Bill Mahr tonight.

    #86912
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    Here is an answer to your question WV.

    ‘Why don’t we just copy the Canadians?’ is because we can’t. We’re not Canadian and we don’t share the same history or the same social ethos.’”

    I don’t buy that. It’s not because we are so culturely different; it’s because the US has been so propagandized that anything socialist is bad, and single payer is largely portrayed as socialist by the powers that be. It’s not culture – it’s a relatively small group of people who got rich off the current healthcare system, and therefore have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. IMO that’s what’s keeping us from having single payer. If you describe the benefits of single payer to most Americans and they are all for it. It’s not until you call it single payer that they turn up their noses.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photonittany ram.
    #86915
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    – it’s a relatively small group of people who got rich off the current healthcare system, and therefore have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo that keeps us from having single payer.

    It has nothing to do with “culture.” It has to do with the fact that combined, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries are the biggest lobbiests (in terms of amount spent) and campaign donors (in terms of amount spent) in the USA. Most of the time, you can’t run for office without their money, and they give to both parties.

    Polls.

    I restricted the search to the last year.

    The Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows 51 percent of Americans support single-payer, while 43 percent oppose it. http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/383015-poll-slim-majority-of-americans-support-single-payer-health-care

    The latest Harvard-Harris Poll survey found 52 percent favor a single-payer system against 48 who oppose it. http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/351928-poll-majority-supports-single-payer-healthcare

    a growing share now supports a “single payer” approach to health insurance, according to a new national survey by Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/

    The June Kaiser Health Tracking poll finds that a slim majority of the public (53 percent) now favors a single-payer health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-but-malleable-support-for-single-payer-health-care/

    A new poll found 59% of Americans support a “national Medicare-for-all plan.” http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-medicare-for-all-public-option-bernie-sanders-plan-support-2018-3

    Single-payer health care is surging with a majority of American voters — and Democrats are loving it the most, a new poll showed Wednesday. A POLITICO/Morning Consult survey said 49% of general voters support a proposal for a single-payer system, while 35% oppose it and 17% hold no opinion. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/americans-dems-support-single-payer-health-care-poll-article-1.3509035

    “Given all of the discontent with health care and desire for coverage, single-payer has more support than I have seen in the past, with the country split down the middle,” said Harvard-Harris Poll co-director Mark Penn. The poll also showed that 69 percent of respondents believe the single-payer system would “provide more coverage.” 54 percent of Republicans agree. https://www.salon.com/2017/09/22/majority-of-americans-support-single-payer-poll/

    Citing simplicity, fewer hassles with insurers and more stable coverage for patients, U.S. physicians increasingly support a single-payer healthcare system, new reports indicate. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/08/13/doctors-coming-around-to-single-payer-healthcare/#4cc41b824767

    The Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll asked: “Do you support or oppose having a national health plan—or a single-payer plan—in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan?” More than half said they support it. The results align with other polls conducted within the past year. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/12/spreading-wildfire-majority-americans-including-74-democrats-now-support-single

    That’s enough for now. There is more though.

    ..

    #86917
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Well i dunno what to think of those polls. Because Clinton got more votes than Bernie. Ya know. I mean voters had a choice between the two. And they voted for crooked hillary.

    So either the polls are wrong, or people dont think its an important issue, or…?

    w
    v

    #86918
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Well i dunno what to think of those polls. Because Clinton got more votes than Bernie. Ya know. I mean voters had a choice between the two. And they voted for crooked hillary.

    So either the polls are wrong, or people dont think its an important issue, or…?

    w
    v

    I dunno, man, that’s kind of a non sequitor.

    Health care is just one issue among others…if it drove the election by itself that would be a different thing.

    That doesn’t make the polls inaccurate.

    All you have to ask is, what makes people vote against their own interests.

    #86921
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I thought support for single payer was a lot higher than that. I thought I’d seen 70%. Looks like that figure is among Democrats.

    So while it’s a majority of Americans, it’s a pretty thin majority.

    Well, that’s depressing.

    #86922
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    I thought support for single payer was a lot higher than that. I thought I’d seen 70%. Looks like that figure is among Democrats.

    So while it’s a majority of Americans, it’s a pretty thin majority.

    Well, that’s depressing.

    This is the perfect political discussion.

    One argument says Americans do not want it at all and that it is against their core beliefs.

    Another argument says it’s depressing that only a 51-53% majority wants it, with 40-something percent against it.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 47 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.