# The dangerous politics of Medicare For All **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 31, 2019, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dangerous-politics-of-medicare-for-all/837922 "2019-07-31T11:19:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dangerous-politics-of-medicare-for-all/837922/241 "2019-08-29T19:37:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’d say that 70% is not reliable. [There is other data](https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/) that shows [the figure to be significantly less](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/medicare-for-all-isnt-that-popular-even-among-democrats/). Fair enough. But, digging a bit into the details, it’s worth noting that your first cite shows that support for single-payer has in fact been the position of the majority of Americans after 2016, even if it was less than 70%. And the second cite shows lack of support specifically for Bernie’s plan to eliminate private insurance altogether – which plan I always thought was unrealistic and politically a non-starter – not lack of support for MfA itself. In fact when they present the option of “Medicare for All who choose it, allowing private insurance”, the overall percentage who approve is … exactly 70%! So I think your additional data points are a useful clarification but the fact remains that MfA appears to be a popular policy proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dangerous-politics-of-medicare-for-all/837922/242 "2019-08-29T19:52:54Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So I think your additional data points are a useful clarification but the fact remains that MfA appears to be a popular policy proposal. There are so many flavors floating around, and the details are so critical to the execution, I’d say relatively few data points on a complex topic are not good fodder to base conclusions on. But I do agree that MfA is very popular policy proposal. ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dangerous-politics-of-medicare-for-all/837922/243 "2019-08-29T20:12:23Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > How do you reconcile “a large majority of Americans [liking] what they have” with the fact that [70% of them are in favor of single payer](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html) in the form of Medicare for All? And only 20% are opposed to such a system. It’s extremely easy to reconcile. First, when people are told that private insurance would be abolished under a Sanders plan, their support plummets for M4A. Second, it’s the typical micro vs macro conundrum. I know if my own car is a good car. But don’t ask me to evaluate the automobile industry in total. I know if my house is a good investment, but I can’t accurately appraise the entire housing market across the US. Same thing with health care and insurance. People generally are OK with what they have in the US, although yes, it is too expensive. But people generally think their own situation is good. Most of these people know alot more about their own doctors and hospitals and Rx than they know about the overall health care system. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dangerous-politics-of-medicare-for-all/837922/244 "2019-08-30T00:30:44Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > … But as I stated earlier, engaging in a long discussion about why you or I believe Americans should not have a candidate’s sexual orientation or religion or gender fluidity or whatever matter to their vote is not especially relevant to the question of whether or not it does matter to enough of them as to impact a candidate’s chances of winning. … This analogy appears to be based on an implicit assumption that few or no Americans can or will ever learn something about a topic (in this case UHC and single-payer) that would affect their votes. I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption. > [@wolfpup](#): > > …But more and more, Americans appear to be realizing that all other comparable countries provide health care for _ **all** _ their citizens and that they do it more efficiently and far more economically than the US does. So there’s a growing conviction that what other countries are doing is worth emulating. > > …Health care systems involve a lot of potentially complex issues, so what better way to understand their performance than to look at real-life examples of how different systems actually work and what their outcomes are, and what the public’s level of satisfaction is with them. That’s the most pragmatic way of arriving at the “full truth”, and it’s why the examples of other countries are not a hijack or irrelevant to the discussion but absolutely central to how policy proposals should be presented. \*\* I’m always astounded by how something like MfA is often represented as being a crazy and daring experiment with absolutely unknowable outcomes when variants of it exist all over the world, readily available for detailed study.\*\* Yes, this. Only some fraction of voters will pay attention to such information, but we can’t assume that none will, nor can we assume that over time the numbers paying attention can’t increase. Thus the discussion isn’t actually based on prescriptive ideas on what American voters “should” know or believe. Instead, it’s based on the twin facts that useful information is worth presenting, and that polling provides evidence that opinions do change over time. (my emphasis in the quote) ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dangerous-politics-of-medicare-for-all/837922/245 "2019-08-30T02:43:41Z")
It’s fine if you want to try to educate the electorate. But that is not a short term project to accomplish during one election cycle. Warren and Sanders are way out over their skis. > [@survinga](#): > > It’s extremely easy to reconcile. First, when people are told that private insurance would be abolished under a Sanders plan, their support plummets for M4A. Second, it’s the typical micro vs macro conundrum. I know if my own car is a good car. But don’t ask me to evaluate the automobile industry in total. I know if my house is a good investment, but I can’t accurately appraise the entire housing market across the US. > > Same thing with health care and insurance. People generally are OK with what they have in the US, although yes, it is too expensive. But people generally think their own situation is good. Most of these people know alot more about their own doctors and hospitals and Rx than they know about the overall health care system. Right. People don’t approve of Congress, but they like their representative. They think “the schools” are bad, but they like their child’s school. So propose to reform other people’s health coverage, but not to replace theirs with something totally new. > [@wolfpup](#): > > And the second cite shows lack of support specifically for Bernie’s plan to eliminate private insurance altogether – which plan I always thought was unrealistic and politically a non-starter – not lack of support for MfA itself. In fact when they present the option of “Medicare for All who choose it, allowing private insurance”, the overall percentage who approve is … exactly 70%! > > So I think your additional data points are a useful clarification but the fact remains that MfA appears to be a popular policy proposal. But Bernie’s bill (which Warren backs to the hilt) is what is actually called MFA, inaccurate though that may be descriptively. If you add “…who want it”, I have no problem with that. It’s what other Democrats are proposing and what I support. If anyone thinks I oppose that, we have failed to communicate. But Warren and Sanders are two of the top three in polls, and they support precisely what you are correctly calling “unrealistic and politically a non-starter”. The point of this thread is to oppose those two top tier candidates. Just those two. Bernie and Liz. That’s it. Not to oppose UHC in general terms, or to oppose any of the other candidates’ plans. I thought I was clear about that from the jump, but if not, my apologies. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dangerous-politics-of-medicare-for-all/837922/246 "2019-08-30T02:45:29Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > This analogy appears to be based on an implicit assumption that few or no Americans can or will ever learn something about a topic (in this case UHC and single-payer) that would affect their votes. … Not by any stretch of even twisted logic. The question of what Americans want and will want to vote for, the question of political advantage and disadvantage, is just a question very independent of arguments regarding what voters SHOULD be in support of. Is “useful” (YMMV) information worth presenting? Sure. But “useful” information that is not useful to the question being asked is pretty useless. It is useful to a different question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dangerous-politics-of-medicare-for-all/837922.md?page=12)