If “socialized health care” was the easiest lift ever, it would have been enacted!
I’m sorry, Dennis, but I’m calling disingenousness on this statement. As was made clear in my response to you, if the concern was simply if the electorate would accept it, since it is a wildly popular policy goal, it would be the easiest political lift ever.
Again, as I made crystal clear, the issue is not political. It’s monetary.
Congresspersons and Senators are firmly latched onto the corporate money teet, and fear, if they were to cross the Insurance and Pharma industry, that not only would they lose that money, but those institutions would fund primary and general challengers.
And in my response, I clearly delineated the difference between those two concerns. So, you clearly aren’t responding to my comment. You’re just being a dick. Please confine your responses to something at least tangentially pertinent to my actual comment, rather than trying to take it out of context, as if I didn’t know what I wrote.
The fact is, our representatives should be responsible to the voters who elect them, not the donors whose policy goals are hostile to those voters’ interests.
800,000 people work in the health insurance industry. What happens to them?
Maybe they can get jobs in same the industries that 1 million+ union manufacturing workers were supposed to transition to when Clinton, Bush and Obama unceremoniously sent their jobs offshore. I notice that the political establishment didn’t care so much about their welfare. Could it be because industry actually wanted to dump those jobs, and Democrats don’t give a shit about unions anymore???
What happens when someone loses the employer-based insurance they have for a lesser coverage policy under some Medicaid for all system?
I’m not sure you’ve done your homework here. I have a Cadillac plan in a large corporation, and it is literally useless to me as an insurance plan. The best insurance plan we offer has a $550 per person deductible. As a relatively healthy human, I never satisfy the deductible, so I’m paying $800/month for nothing.
Medicare for All, or universal care, or socialized medicine, however you want to phrase it, if it is based at all like the current version of medicare without the age restriction, would cover everyone from the first visit. Poll after poll shows that medicare patients are universally happier with their coverage than a similar group of private insurance patients.
And, the coverage is cheaper. Everywhere it has ever been implemented, universal healthcare is cheaper to implement, and produces better results. Everywhere. This non-point is the reddest of red herrings.
I disagree “ big pharma” etc could stop this if it was really ready to go. What stops it is gerrymandered Republican control in thrall to their ideology and scared of a challenge from their right
If Democrats took their collective head out of their ass and looked around every once in a while, they would have seen a candidate in the last election that would have taken a large portion of Republican votes, because of goals like Medicare for All.
Poor people who tend to vote Republican still need healthcare, and a lot of them were the union members who are greeting at Walmart and driving Ubers, because of Democratically-promoted free trade policies. They have no job security, no stability, and no benefits.
Medicare for All would be a boon to all people working today who either don’t have healthcare, have crappy healthcare through the ACA, or are tied to their current jobs for fear of losing their healthcare.
When Republicans lose a shit-ton of votes to a socialist because their business-friendly-first policies cost all those people their security, you’ll see how fast their ideology changes.