> From 1960 to 2010, Americans when polled if someone with pre-existing conditions should be able to get health insurance or government-funded care not only wan

> From 1960 to 2010, Americans when polled if someone with pre-existing conditions should be able to get health insurance or government-funded care not only wanted that by a majority, but by an overwhelming majority. Nevertheless it was blocked for half a century in the legislature. But when polled if government should raise taxes, the overwhelming majority said no. You are leaving out the part that really matters. A perfect example is Trump voters supporting building the wall and Trump voters being against raising taxes to pay for the wall. How can you resolve such a contradiction? You can't. If you are a clever snake oil salesman like Trump, you lie and say "Mexico will pay for it". But that's not how the world works. People will always be noble and virtuous when nothing is at stake. It's like how elizabeth warren can support mass immigration but asked if she's willing to house a migrant family, she'll say no. It's like how politicians support war but find exemptions for their sons. Personally, I think universal basic income is the best shot. If the poor, homeless, uninsured, etc were getting a steady monthly check, the markets will find a way to provide housing, insurance, etc for them.