4 ms·

Except that healthcare is needed outside of work, by the worker, their spouse and children. It's needed for the person with the job and the one without. For the

Except that healthcare is needed outside of work, by the worker, their spouse and children. It's needed for the person with the job and the one without. For the rich and the poor. Bad analogy, healthcare is a human right that shouldn't be tied to a job.

Spooky23 4y ago
You need to convince regular people who vote conservative to stop doing so. The socialist boogeyman scares people more than lack of healthcare.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  You say this as if Democrats didn't attack socialized healthcare in every underhanded way they possibly could when Bernie was running in 2016 and 2020. Before 2016, socialized healthcare was overwhelmingly supported by Democratic voters, and even carried a small majority of Republican voters for a short time. The Democrats fixed that good. Will providing healthcare to everyone end racism?
  - Bilal_io 4y ago
    If I am not mistaken, there were still 70+ percent of all Americans that supported universal healthcare as of 2020.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Probably. But 1) far fewer Republicans, and 2) Democrats have been given verbiage to lie about their support for it i.e. "universal access" or "universal coverage" or "universally affordable coverage." If you ask a Democrat about whether they support socialized healthcare, they'll tell you that they of course support "universal access." What is "universal healthcare" anyway? It sounds like some the kind of intensely workshopped and whiteboarded meaningless marriage between socialized healthcare and "universal access" that "Medicare for All" was designed to head off.
    - quadrifoliate 4y ago
      American votes are fickle, and talking about running a universal healthcare system is easier than actually running one, especially for a country that has a perception of "government bad, companies good" created over the years by conservative propaganda. I think the Democrats correctly recognize that there is not a deep belief in the idea that of socialized universal healthcare in America. In the survey you quoted, I would bet that about 20-30 out of that 70% support the effects of it (i.e. universal free or cheap healthcare), but would not support a tax increase to pay for it if needed.
      - Bilal_io 4y ago
        The US already spends more per Capita for healthcare. I truly believe a tax increase won't be necessary, it's a matter of creating a sound plan that offers coverage to everyone using what we already spend on Healthcare. Regulate pharma pricing, cut the insurance companies as middlemen (they make $10's of billion in profit and their CEOs get paid millions), and make medical school affordable, even subsidize it if necessary. All of these issues we can sit here and discuss for hours have solutions, change will only happen when we all agree that healthcare is a human right, and shouldn't be tied to a job.
        quadrifoliate 4y ago
        > it's a matter of creating a sound plan that offers coverage to everyone using what we already spend on Healthcare "It's a matter of creating a sound plan" is not the trivial thing you make it out to be without having a broad mandate about healthcare. You sound like the typical person who has never run for political office, but somehow thinks that they would totally fix the system if they were in charge. Governments are an efficient market of sorts. Affecting the market needs either broad changes in society's point of view, or catastrophic events. It's indicative of the magnitude of conservative thought in American society that even the worst pandemic in US history did not result in a bipartisan push towards socialized healthcare. For what it's worth – I agree with you about healthcare being a human right, but I'm not the person you need to convince. It's the people in your nearest conservative-leaning district who tend to treat healthcare more like going to the car dealership.
    - gnopgnip 4y ago
      The results of these polls really depend on how you define universal healthcare. For many the ACA counts as universal healthcare
    - uoaei 4y ago
      If you've received any texts from "Pelosi" or "Obama" asking for donations recently, you will notice that the tactics that Dem consultants have settled on for their rhetoric is essentially scare tactics. The short circuits toward amygdala activation preclude the prefrontal cortex from being engaged.
  - rnk 4y ago
    I don't think that's accurate. Many, maybe most democrats wanted national health care. Everyone I know wants it except my boomer parents and in-laws who of course have national healthcare via medicare. Some people used scare tactics against Bernie. People used scare tactics against HRC, Biden, and Trump. None of them were some "official national democratic party" - the dems have many factions. "Democrats" were not against health care. Some dems wanted a different candidate to win, and they argued against Bernie. Some dems were against Biden and argued against him too.
  - tzs 4y ago
    Socialized healthcare is not the only way to achieve universal healthcare. See for example Germany or Singapore.
- pueblito 4y ago
  Factually incorrect. Obama was elected in 2008 with a supermajority in Congress and mandate to fix healthcare. He made it worse. Californias State Assembly has tried to get UHC, it was blocked by Newsom. If it cannot be done in California then it’s clear the Democrats aren’t going to fix it and have no political solution.
  - lokar 4y ago
    The ACA has made a big difference in my family. The rule on pre-existing conditions is huge.
  - Bilal_io 4y ago
    Your first claim is an opinion rather than a fact. From my OPINION there are more people covered and are benefitting from medicare and medicaid because of those improvements. I don't have enough info to comment on your second point, but what I've heard was there were serious concerns in the bill and that's why gov. Newsom vetoed the bill.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > Your first claim is an opinion rather than a fact. If you haven't looked it up, why would your claim that this is an opinion be anything other than noise? Find out whether its a fact or not (if you care) and come back and tell us. > From my OPINION there are more people covered and are benefiting from medicare and medicaid because of those improvements. This is not a matter for opinion. It's a claim fact that you can choose to verify or not.
      - Bilal_io 4y ago
        No, when someone posts something claiming it's a verifiable fact, it's their job to support it with citation. Until they do that, it remains an opinion.
        metadat 4y ago
        Please choose to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Parent comment offers you a more reasonable way to think about it; the right thing for you to do is to provide verifiable evidence against bogus claims, otherwise it's just yelling at each other on the Internet, and nothing of any value happens. This isn't what HN is for, and it sucks for everyone else having to wade through such drivel. FWIW, I agree that the GP post you first responded to is trash. Take a moment, breathe deeply and try to relax ;)
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  Virtually all opinion polls I have seen in the past few years indicate that not only an overwhelming majority of the general population of US Americans support a variant of Univeral Healthcare/Public Option/Single Payer but so do a majority of Republican voters, albeit by a slimmer margin. The limiting political factor is no longer the demand side of the scale—the voters and their fear of "socialism"—but rather on the supply side—the electable candidates and their unwillingness to do anything about it.
  - newfriend 4y ago
    Polls are easy to manipulate and not a good indicator of what people actually want. > Do you support universal healthcare? > Do you support raising your taxes by $X per year? > Do you support universal healthcare if it means raising your taxes by $X per year? Which question do you think they asked?
    - staticman2 4y ago
      "Do you support raising your taxes by $X per year?" This would be a biased question to ask, since the economic effect on a U.S. citizen couldn't be measured by the tax rate alone.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  Obama had a filibuster proof majority in 2009 - could have passed literally anything they wanted without a single Republican vote and did absolutely nothing with it. Conservatives aren't the only thing stopping universal healthcare. It's corrupt politicians in the pockets of health insurance.
  - ckw 4y ago
    It’s more extreme than that: Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority, and unlimited debate is just a rule— prior to 1806 there was limited debate. So the democrats could just completely eliminate the filibuster, in any form, and pass what they choose, so long as they have 51 votes, or 50 and the Vice President. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Spooky23 4y ago

You need to convince regular people who vote conservative to stop doing so. The socialist boogeyman scares people more than lack of healthcare.

pessimizer 4y ago
You say this as if Democrats didn't attack socialized healthcare in every underhanded way they possibly could when Bernie was running in 2016 and 2020. Before 2016, socialized healthcare was overwhelmingly supported by Democratic voters, and even carried a small majority of Republican voters for a short time. The Democrats fixed that good. Will providing healthcare to everyone end racism?
- Bilal_io 4y ago
  If I am not mistaken, there were still 70+ percent of all Americans that supported universal healthcare as of 2020.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Probably. But 1) far fewer Republicans, and 2) Democrats have been given verbiage to lie about their support for it i.e. "universal access" or "universal coverage" or "universally affordable coverage." If you ask a Democrat about whether they support socialized healthcare, they'll tell you that they of course support "universal access." What is "universal healthcare" anyway? It sounds like some the kind of intensely workshopped and whiteboarded meaningless marriage between socialized healthcare and "universal access" that "Medicare for All" was designed to head off.
  - quadrifoliate 4y ago
    American votes are fickle, and talking about running a universal healthcare system is easier than actually running one, especially for a country that has a perception of "government bad, companies good" created over the years by conservative propaganda. I think the Democrats correctly recognize that there is not a deep belief in the idea that of socialized universal healthcare in America. In the survey you quoted, I would bet that about 20-30 out of that 70% support the effects of it (i.e. universal free or cheap healthcare), but would not support a tax increase to pay for it if needed.
    - Bilal_io 4y ago
      The US already spends more per Capita for healthcare. I truly believe a tax increase won't be necessary, it's a matter of creating a sound plan that offers coverage to everyone using what we already spend on Healthcare. Regulate pharma pricing, cut the insurance companies as middlemen (they make $10's of billion in profit and their CEOs get paid millions), and make medical school affordable, even subsidize it if necessary. All of these issues we can sit here and discuss for hours have solutions, change will only happen when we all agree that healthcare is a human right, and shouldn't be tied to a job.
      - quadrifoliate 4y ago
        > it's a matter of creating a sound plan that offers coverage to everyone using what we already spend on Healthcare "It's a matter of creating a sound plan" is not the trivial thing you make it out to be without having a broad mandate about healthcare. You sound like the typical person who has never run for political office, but somehow thinks that they would totally fix the system if they were in charge. Governments are an efficient market of sorts. Affecting the market needs either broad changes in society's point of view, or catastrophic events. It's indicative of the magnitude of conservative thought in American society that even the worst pandemic in US history did not result in a bipartisan push towards socialized healthcare. For what it's worth – I agree with you about healthcare being a human right, but I'm not the person you need to convince. It's the people in your nearest conservative-leaning district who tend to treat healthcare more like going to the car dealership.
  - gnopgnip 4y ago
    The results of these polls really depend on how you define universal healthcare. For many the ACA counts as universal healthcare
  - uoaei 4y ago
    If you've received any texts from "Pelosi" or "Obama" asking for donations recently, you will notice that the tactics that Dem consultants have settled on for their rhetoric is essentially scare tactics. The short circuits toward amygdala activation preclude the prefrontal cortex from being engaged.
- rnk 4y ago
  I don't think that's accurate. Many, maybe most democrats wanted national health care. Everyone I know wants it except my boomer parents and in-laws who of course have national healthcare via medicare. Some people used scare tactics against Bernie. People used scare tactics against HRC, Biden, and Trump. None of them were some "official national democratic party" - the dems have many factions. "Democrats" were not against health care. Some dems wanted a different candidate to win, and they argued against Bernie. Some dems were against Biden and argued against him too.
- tzs 4y ago
  Socialized healthcare is not the only way to achieve universal healthcare. See for example Germany or Singapore.
pueblito 4y ago
Factually incorrect. Obama was elected in 2008 with a supermajority in Congress and mandate to fix healthcare. He made it worse. Californias State Assembly has tried to get UHC, it was blocked by Newsom. If it cannot be done in California then it’s clear the Democrats aren’t going to fix it and have no political solution.
- lokar 4y ago
  The ACA has made a big difference in my family. The rule on pre-existing conditions is huge.
- Bilal_io 4y ago
  Your first claim is an opinion rather than a fact. From my OPINION there are more people covered and are benefitting from medicare and medicaid because of those improvements. I don't have enough info to comment on your second point, but what I've heard was there were serious concerns in the bill and that's why gov. Newsom vetoed the bill.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > Your first claim is an opinion rather than a fact. If you haven't looked it up, why would your claim that this is an opinion be anything other than noise? Find out whether its a fact or not (if you care) and come back and tell us. > From my OPINION there are more people covered and are benefiting from medicare and medicaid because of those improvements. This is not a matter for opinion. It's a claim fact that you can choose to verify or not.
    - Bilal_io 4y ago
      No, when someone posts something claiming it's a verifiable fact, it's their job to support it with citation. Until they do that, it remains an opinion.
      - metadat 4y ago
        Please choose to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Parent comment offers you a more reasonable way to think about it; the right thing for you to do is to provide verifiable evidence against bogus claims, otherwise it's just yelling at each other on the Internet, and nothing of any value happens. This isn't what HN is for, and it sucks for everyone else having to wade through such drivel. FWIW, I agree that the GP post you first responded to is trash. Take a moment, breathe deeply and try to relax ;)
Mordisquitos 4y ago
Virtually all opinion polls I have seen in the past few years indicate that not only an overwhelming majority of the general population of US Americans support a variant of Univeral Healthcare/Public Option/Single Payer but so do a majority of Republican voters, albeit by a slimmer margin. The limiting political factor is no longer the demand side of the scale—the voters and their fear of "socialism"—but rather on the supply side—the electable candidates and their unwillingness to do anything about it.
- newfriend 4y ago
  Polls are easy to manipulate and not a good indicator of what people actually want. > Do you support universal healthcare? > Do you support raising your taxes by $X per year? > Do you support universal healthcare if it means raising your taxes by $X per year? Which question do you think they asked?
  - staticman2 4y ago
    "Do you support raising your taxes by $X per year?" This would be a biased question to ask, since the economic effect on a U.S. citizen couldn't be measured by the tax rate alone.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
Obama had a filibuster proof majority in 2009 - could have passed literally anything they wanted without a single Republican vote and did absolutely nothing with it. Conservatives aren't the only thing stopping universal healthcare. It's corrupt politicians in the pockets of health insurance.
- ckw 4y ago
  It’s more extreme than that: Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority, and unlimited debate is just a rule— prior to 1806 there was limited debate. So the democrats could just completely eliminate the filibuster, in any form, and pass what they choose, so long as they have 51 votes, or 50 and the Vice President. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]