5 ms·

If people voted for universal healthcare we could get it done. The issue is that there’s a sizable, significant voting population that votes against it

devilsdata 2mo ago
My question is why a sizeable portion of the American (and greater Western) public seemingly votes against their interests?
- looksjjhg 2mo ago
  Stupidity https://youtu.be/HbQ-t8GXYTA https://youtu.be/HbQ-t8GXYTA
- simpaticoder 2mo ago
  The people who vote are old. The median age of primary voters is 65, regular voters 54. This is why you get a gerontocracy - old people vote for their interests, and young people don't vote. It's also probably why the median age of politicians has risen to 58 and 66 in the house and senate, respectively. With an 80-year-old president. The solution is to have both a) mandatory voting and b) a voting holiday. This is done in many other democracies around the world, and it works. Personally I would prefer term limits and age limits for congress, the president, and federal judges. Diane Feinstein, Ruth Bater Ginsberg died in office. Mitch McConnell is working on it. We have age limits for lots of professions that require high performance - political leadership should not be an exception. But of course to make any of these changes young people have to vote, but they're mostly busy being poor and doomscrolling to block out the pain.
- kulahan 2mo ago
  A few things. -The US has had a lot of success by letting businesses run pretty free. This has produced some of the largest and most powerful companies on the planet. -The conservative party traditionally has been suspicious of a powerful, centralized government -In the US, there is a common thread of "government workers are impossible to fire" as well as a common thread of "government moves at a snail's pace". In light of just that, there are many people who would prefer that healthcare is run by a private industry, as private insurers are enormous companies in the US. Everyone knows Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, or Kaiser Permanente. Many people give a benefit of the doubt that companies are doing things efficiently. Additionally, health insurance companies in the US have a requirement to spend a certain % of their revenue each year on medical care, and will sometimes send out small refunds when they simply cannot suppress costs in certain other regions of the company enough to keep their spending at the right rates. Beyond this, states may provide additional benefits, and many do (some with the help of federal funding, even). You may find someone in one state where they are suffering greatly, while someone in an identical economic situation in another state is not suffering at all. It's easy to convince the first man to vote for a better healthcare situation. It's hard to convince the latter. I could go on for ages, but this is getting long. There are like a billion reasons.
  - ajross 2mo ago
    > there are many people who would prefer that healthcare is run by a private industry, The grammar is a little ambiguous around this, but you seem to be claiming that this is a majority position. It isn't. Single payer polls over 50% basically every time it's tested (the exception being some spun partisan reframings you occasionally see pushed), and has for decades.
    - kulahan 2mo ago
      I did not intend to imply it’s a majority, just that it’s not some ignorably-small minority
- sghiassy 2mo ago
  - Dogma - us vs them mentality - we’re not that smart
ziofill 2mo ago
No, overwhelmingly more people support a single payer healthcare system. The issue is that the people in Washington won’t make it a “votable” decision.
- ajross 2mo ago
  > The issue is that the people in Washington won’t make it a “votable” decision. Sorry, that's ridiculous. Universal Health Care policies are an almost 100% partisan issue. I can literally count on one hand the number of federal lawmakers who cross party lines here. The real problem is people like you refusing to vote for the people with the policy you want, as often as not as part of a bothsidesist stance designed to get more upvote in peer forums like HN. The two party system may be flawed and unjust, sure. But people who want single payer are still democrats.
  - anonymars 2mo ago
    > The real problem is people like you refusing to vote for the people with the policy you want, as often as not as part of a bothsidesist stance designed to get more upvote in peer forums like HN That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare nor even a public option. Nothing about that says anything about who voted for whom, where anyone even lives for that matter, or anything about political parties. To say this is the fault of "people like you" is out of line.
    - ajross 2mo ago
      > That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare But that is what they didn't say! They said it wasn't "votable", in the sense I took that means that this isn't an issue you can get by voting. And it is, clearly. And was, in 2010, when they were within one senate vote for a "public option" in the ACA. It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at that once again incredibly partisan voting result and decide "Oh well, I might as well vote republican" (instead of "damn Joe Lieberman").
lebuffon 2mo ago
I have wondered if an option would be to have a state make it law that every 4 or 5 years they open the bidding for a health care insurance provider for the entire state. A state committee then takes the bid with best premiums to services ratio and they do the job for the contract term. There would still be the option of people and businesses to buy 3rd party "extras" like private hospital rooms, vision care etc. on top the state plan, but some level of basic health care would be provided to all people paying into the state plan. Would that work?
- sghiassy 2mo ago
  You’re proposing a rational option on an issue where irrational dogma has taken hold
  - tyami94 2mo ago
    the "irrational dogma" you speak of is simply the status quo in all other civilized countries.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2mo ago
If I voted for this, could I save $1 trillion? Or would it save other people who are not me $1 trillion?

devilsdata 2mo ago

My question is why a sizeable portion of the American (and greater Western) public seemingly votes against their interests?

looksjjhg 2mo ago
Stupidity https://youtu.be/HbQ-t8GXYTA https://youtu.be/HbQ-t8GXYTA
simpaticoder 2mo ago
The people who vote are old. The median age of primary voters is 65, regular voters 54. This is why you get a gerontocracy - old people vote for their interests, and young people don't vote. It's also probably why the median age of politicians has risen to 58 and 66 in the house and senate, respectively. With an 80-year-old president. The solution is to have both a) mandatory voting and b) a voting holiday. This is done in many other democracies around the world, and it works. Personally I would prefer term limits and age limits for congress, the president, and federal judges. Diane Feinstein, Ruth Bater Ginsberg died in office. Mitch McConnell is working on it. We have age limits for lots of professions that require high performance - political leadership should not be an exception. But of course to make any of these changes young people have to vote, but they're mostly busy being poor and doomscrolling to block out the pain.
kulahan 2mo ago
A few things. -The US has had a lot of success by letting businesses run pretty free. This has produced some of the largest and most powerful companies on the planet. -The conservative party traditionally has been suspicious of a powerful, centralized government -In the US, there is a common thread of "government workers are impossible to fire" as well as a common thread of "government moves at a snail's pace". In light of just that, there are many people who would prefer that healthcare is run by a private industry, as private insurers are enormous companies in the US. Everyone knows Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, or Kaiser Permanente. Many people give a benefit of the doubt that companies are doing things efficiently. Additionally, health insurance companies in the US have a requirement to spend a certain % of their revenue each year on medical care, and will sometimes send out small refunds when they simply cannot suppress costs in certain other regions of the company enough to keep their spending at the right rates. Beyond this, states may provide additional benefits, and many do (some with the help of federal funding, even). You may find someone in one state where they are suffering greatly, while someone in an identical economic situation in another state is not suffering at all. It's easy to convince the first man to vote for a better healthcare situation. It's hard to convince the latter. I could go on for ages, but this is getting long. There are like a billion reasons.
- ajross 2mo ago
  > there are many people who would prefer that healthcare is run by a private industry, The grammar is a little ambiguous around this, but you seem to be claiming that this is a majority position. It isn't. Single payer polls over 50% basically every time it's tested (the exception being some spun partisan reframings you occasionally see pushed), and has for decades.
  - kulahan 2mo ago
    I did not intend to imply it’s a majority, just that it’s not some ignorably-small minority
sghiassy 2mo ago
- Dogma - us vs them mentality - we’re not that smart

ziofill 2mo ago

No, overwhelmingly more people support a single payer healthcare system. The issue is that the people in Washington won’t make it a “votable” decision.

ajross 2mo ago
> The issue is that the people in Washington won’t make it a “votable” decision. Sorry, that's ridiculous. Universal Health Care policies are an almost 100% partisan issue. I can literally count on one hand the number of federal lawmakers who cross party lines here. The real problem is people like you refusing to vote for the people with the policy you want, as often as not as part of a bothsidesist stance designed to get more upvote in peer forums like HN. The two party system may be flawed and unjust, sure. But people who want single payer are still democrats.
- anonymars 2mo ago
  > The real problem is people like you refusing to vote for the people with the policy you want, as often as not as part of a bothsidesist stance designed to get more upvote in peer forums like HN That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare nor even a public option. Nothing about that says anything about who voted for whom, where anyone even lives for that matter, or anything about political parties. To say this is the fault of "people like you" is out of line.
  - ajross 2mo ago
    > That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare But that is what they didn't say! They said it wasn't "votable", in the sense I took that means that this isn't an issue you can get by voting. And it is, clearly. And was, in 2010, when they were within one senate vote for a "public option" in the ACA. It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at that once again incredibly partisan voting result and decide "Oh well, I might as well vote republican" (instead of "damn Joe Lieberman").

lebuffon 2mo ago

I have wondered if an option would be to have a state make it law that every 4 or 5 years they open the bidding for a health care insurance provider for the entire state. A state committee then takes the bid with best premiums to services ratio and they do the job for the contract term. There would still be the option of people and businesses to buy 3rd party "extras" like private hospital rooms, vision care etc. on top the state plan, but some level of basic health care would be provided to all people paying into the state plan. Would that work?

sghiassy 2mo ago
You’re proposing a rational option on an issue where irrational dogma has taken hold
- tyami94 2mo ago
  the "irrational dogma" you speak of is simply the status quo in all other civilized countries.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2mo ago

If I voted for this, could I save $1 trillion? Or would it save other people who are not me $1 trillion?