Reuters Poll: 70 Percent Support Single Payer Including 52 Percent of Republicans

70 percent of Americans now support single-payer health care, including 52 percent of Republicans.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

Those numbers are pretty shocking. Maybe this is an outlier poll?

The headline is a bit misleading, they do not say they will support a single payer system, The question asked was

"Would you support or oppose the following?

A POLICY OF MEDICARE FOR ALL?"

Which is not the same as a single-payer system.

@Jacanuk: Ok, implement that.

Sure, now if you only could get the Republicans who are in office to do it, then I am all for it.

@Jacanuk: Or vote them out. :-)

Well, universal health care or Medicare for all is cheaper than health care insurance by at least a factor of 2. You can look at every other Western country and they spend half the amount on health care.

The only free market solution to health care that would work, that I support and would be even cheaper than Medicare for all is massive de regulations of the health care industry. Lowering the standards for doctors/nurses, getting rid of frivolous medical lawsuits when the procedure is complicated(this would eliminate the majority of the lawsuits) and opening up competition for insurance providers. Doing this, we could probably bring down health care costs to the lowest of all 1st world countries. I'm sorry, doctors are definitely hard working and awesome, but they don't deserve to drive around benzes. Let the free market decide that, not artificial regulations that restrict competition.

Medicare for all is Single Payer.

https://qz.com/1075942/medicare-for-all-how-bernie-sanders-single-payer-system-would-work/

Medicare for all is simply the name of Bernie Sander's Single Payer Plan, not an entirely different type of healthcare system. So the headline is not misleading.

It wont work till you regulate the healthcare industry.

Is that second part sarcasm? Can't tell these days lol.

Americans are terrified of anything with socialism or socialized in the name. If calling it "medicare for all" is what it takes to get it implemented, go for it. Our for profit healthcare system is an expensive, inhumane travesty.

Sounds peachy, until you realize Medicare is a barely adequate system and most people who are on it still require supplemental coverage, either because medicare doesn't cover what they need, or their doctor isn't part of the Medicare network (18% and rising). The article says that this wouldn't happen under Medicare for all, but doesn't explain how (Spoiler: it will be done by forcing doctors to take on pretty much any patient). Not ideal in a country that has a doctor shortage.

Then there is the cost, something Republicans pretend to care about but really don't

Critics argue that the financial burden on the federal government would be staggering. A much-discussed report released last month by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University suggested that Sanders' proposal would lead to a $32.6 trillion increase in federal spending over a 10-year period. The Urban Institute came up with a similar estimate in 2016.

Even if we went back to the Clinton tax rate and slashed our military budget entirely, we'd be covering less than half of that

@vl4d_l3nin: Well I assume the government would be interested in finding ways to lower the cost. The cost of each visit should be lower when the hospital know it will be paid for each single one.

@vl4d_l3nin: the thing is, a Koch Bros funded study found that Medicare for all with all the bells and whistles would be cheaper than the health insurance system. The Koch Bros were trying to prove that universal health care would be more expensive than the current system buy they couldn't do it.

Not that it matters, switching from a turd system to a less of a turd system doesn't matter. It's still a turd in the end. The only thing that would work is massive deregulation.

@Zero_epyon: nope. I strongly believe that massive deregulation in the healthcare industry would be the best way forward.

Dude, we've tried that for 70 years. Have you been in the twilight zone or something? Republicans have even tried the "buy insurance across state lines" nonsense. None of it worked. Medicare works great, so does chip, medicaid, and tri-care. You have no idea what you're talking about with this deregulation nonsense. If any of that worked, it already would have.

I get that throwing around the words "deregulation" and "free market" sounds great and all, but they're nothing more than nonsense political words meant to illicit an emotion response from the gullible.

That means it's time for the Democratic Party to roll up their sleeves and build a strong campaign based on... Russia!

I am not convinced most republicans even know what 'single payer' means so..

@tjandmia: Free marked works great if you wish to have only a few to make a lot of money.

Eventually the Republican party will need to offer some legitimate ideas for healthcare. Their own constituents will demand it.

@mattbbpl: Not if it means less profits being made :P

What you may put in the question is pretty irrelevant when the question is as ambiguous as that.

So yes the headline is indeed misleading when the question is "would you support a policy of Medicare for all"

Well, clearly not since republicans keep voting for republicans no matter what.

@Jacanuk: I love the foreshadowing. Nicely done.

Well, it´s not different than democrats always voting for the democrat.

The only voters in play are the independents.

actually that question is much better than 'do you support single payer' which is why I was hesitate, I dont think most people understand what that is really.

but 'medicare for all' is pretty clear

No, single payer for all is actually pretty clear.

Medicare for all is vague and could mean all from simply there is an option for people to get it to the government providing it for all at no cost.

no its not

absolutely positive end of story

its not not with many americans of which many thought ACA and Obamacare where literally two different plans.

come on, these people are stupid

You really try to hard at this trolling business.

Some people are indeed uninformed which is why the question asked was too ambiguous to make a headline that states that 70% of Americans are for single payer.

Which is exactly what Reuters who made the poll wanted to do, you can form a question so vague that the end result can be formed to fit your already established narrative.

'medicare for all'

is more clear then

'single payer'

PERIOD

You are talking complete nonsense.

more over,

when you suggest that

'single payer'

is more clear than

'medicare for all'

I think you are lying.

so there is that too

@tryit: Do you even know what Medicare is? and that people have an option to use it right now.

Again the question does not specify if they are for "government paying" or like now with people paying themselves

I do not believe you if you suggest 'single payer' is more clear than 'medicare for all'

period. and nothing you could possible say would make me believe you in that respect. so you will just have to live with it.

trump is president.........of course some people are indeed uninformed.

That same study found our current system would cost about 33 trillion over that same time period. Yes, we would have to raise taxes quite a bit to pay for this, but you have to factor in what you are already paying. Right now I'm paying about $1,000 a month out of pocket to cover my family of four. This is through my employer mind you, so they are paying some of this on top of grand that get taken out of my paycheck. Factor in doctor visits and hospital bills too. I had a second child this year too and there were complications with the birth. That's set me back out of pocket $7,000 so far and I'm still fighting to get a few more bills down lower. My daughter was born in January and they are still not done charging me for it.

So yes, we would be paying higher taxes, but as even a Koch brothers funded study shows, they would most likely be less than what you and your employer are already paying right now.

Is that like universal healthcare? Because like if we cut out for profit health insurance and each...lemme type up an example. Philadelphia's population is roughly 1.5 million people. If at least 1 million of that is working adults and they paid 108 a month that'd amount to 108 million dollars of medical funding for all give or take whatever bit the government tried to swindle out of it.

@vl4d_l3nin: dude. Even the Koch brothers, who are 100% against it already proven everyone you just posted is a lie.

Any one who thinks the way you do about single pay ether has no clue how bad American health care was and is, is invested in insurance companies and would lose money with it around, or/ and is extremely brainwashed and Beyond Reason.

Which are you?

Sanders proposed a medicare for all. Republicans claimed It would cost some incredible number - like 2 trillion, but then he proposed it would save hundreds of billions by simply passing a 40% across the board cut to all payments. Only trouble with that is it would pretty much put every single provider out of business. But hey, medicare for all.

Think health care reform needs to be a lot more thought out then simply tweaking the payer system. It's going to require an enormous overhaul of the entire system - how resources are distributed, what services are prioritized, how patients are treated, how medicines are covered, etc. etc.

Obamacare was a nice first step, but it was incredibly rushed and flawed and consequently dropped the ball on numerous issues.

Medicare for all is nice, and has been proven to be more cost effective than the alternative. But Medicare for All alone wont be enough. The underlying medical infrastructure needs to be overhauled.

Don't bet on it. There needs to be competition in the insurance business and tort reform for a start. The government is not good at running anything efficiently and after awhile it becomes a weapon to be used against you. Remember anything the government gives you can be taken away by them. Remember the Affordable Health Care Act. The health care costs went up so congress took care of themselves and the government worker got 75% of their costs paid for by the tax payers while the rest of us got stiffed.

Or you could do what most other first world countries do.............

Wait... I am reading this right. You will support anything the current Republicans propose? Or in this case, support a single payer system if proposed by Republicans in office, however be against it if Democrats propose it?

No, you are not reading that correct.

I am for a universal health care system for people who work.

Everyone should have health care..........

What about people who get automated out of the work force? What about people who work low end fast food jobs or retired people? Surely they aren't all worthy of such a human dignity as healthcare.

Work is work.

And retired people should, of course, be covered by their retirement package..

Society has a clear benefit in helping people with work to stay in their current employment.

@LJS9502_basic: Everyone that works you mean.

I dont like the work argument for two reasons.

1. because of automation there is a rapid increase in the question of do we really need everyone working anyway? we kinda dont. we just seem to do it to create more excess that we really dont even want but try to convince ourselves that we do want.

2. some people save up money for a lifetime to retire early they should not be penalized because of it. I am one of those people.

What about if a person who needs life saving surgery or life saving medicine and loses their job because they had to take time off to deal with their ailment?

EDIT I guess where I'm going with this is how many exceptions to the "people who work" rule must be made until people decide that you just deserve to have access to healthcare simply because you're a fellow human?

@Serraph105: "Let them eat cake."