3 ms·
I have my doubts. The term ‘Medicare for All’ is a fairly new term that has only been exposed to public discourse (of the sort that reaches the average unengag
by marcusverus 7y ago
I have my doubts.
The term ‘Medicare for All’ is a fairly new term that has only been exposed to public discourse (of the sort that reaches the average unengaged voter) within the bubble of Democrat primaries.
It’ll be instructive to see how these numbers stand up to scrutiny during the general election—assuming the Democrats elect someone who supports it as advertised.
- digikata 7y agoIt’s pretty well documented by political studies the delta between what voters broadly want and what political leadership in the US generally delivers. That poll covered Democratic, Republican and independent voters. Independents being the unorganized third party in similar size to both other main parties.
- beat 7y agoOn the plus side, the recent Democratic debates have delved into the subject in impressive detail, with candidates grilling each other over differences, as well as the moderators. It's a remarkably nuanced discussion within the party. Not that most voters care about nuance, but for those who do, the information is there.
- mattmcknight 7y agoIn addition, the "Medicare for All" branding is deceptive, as the plan on offer is nothing like Medicare.
- dv_dt 7y agoSome candidates are trying to jump onto the brand without supporting the core proposals, but the Sanders/Jayapal senate and house bills for Medicare for All are the core proposals by which the others should be judged.
- mattmcknight 7y agoYes, the Sanders and Jayapal bills are the ones I meant are nothing like Medicare. I was trying to say that those "Medicare for All" bills are nothing like the current Medicare program.