Share this comment
While it's true that 72% of the voting public say they would like Medicare for all, the only reason that drops off to 36% is because of the instilled public notion that Reagan put into play when he said, & I'm paraphrasing here; 'Hi, it's the government and we're here to help'... that stupid remark, along with his tax cuts for the rich a…
While it's true that 72% of the voting public say they would like Medicare for all, the only reason that drops off to 36% is because of the instilled public notion that Reagan put into play when he said, & I'm paraphrasing here; 'Hi, it's the government and we're here to help'... that stupid remark, along with his tax cuts for the rich and his attacks on unions still is ringing in the heads of the people that desperately want it to be true (when it's NOT) and until that portion of the voters become aware [somehow] that the Republicans are not there to help them (except for that single thing they base their votes on-- like abortion or tax cuts) there can be no advancement to making the government work for all Americans.
The sad part is that we could become [more] fiscally responsible by instituting Medicare For All as long as the private insurance industry is locked out of operating (like they currently do with this bogus Medicare part C garbage we see advertised constantly on TV) then we could actually save about (at the last estimate I saw) $10,000 per year per person.
Plus, it would ease the burden on small businesses and every other employer while at the same time including everyone and honor every American with cost effective comprehensive health coverage. I hate to say it but we may see ALL the polar ice melt before we see any real action in this critical area.
I agree with much of what you say, in particular that MFA would save a lot of money (we estimate $1 trillion per year, or about $3,000 per American). However - Democrats and Bernie please note - MFA is a VOTE LOSER, because of the above.
Better MFAWWI, and this could be the result of an executive order. I think the House would only be able to overturn it if it cost federal dollars, and as you point out, it would actually save money. Moreover, the House will be in Democrat hands at least until the midterms, and MFAWWI might seal and expand their numerical advantage).
MFAWWI is a stealth bomb which could destroy the GOP as we know it. Let McConnell and Manchin (yes, he's soo GOP) try taking it away from their constituents, then stand back and watch. Oh, and if Manchin starts blowing off about deficits, well, it's deficit neutral.
Yes, somehow we need to get the message out that not only would MFA be affordable, but in the future it would save us all a lot of money. But, if it's not disseminated on MSM there are millions that will never know these facts.
And the other thing is that once universal health coverage is instituted, there has been not one single country who's citizens demanded it be killed. It's 100%.
And what is the WWI part? I'm not familiar with that acronym other than World War I...?
MFAWWI: Medicare For All Who Want It (I agree, the acronym could be improved)
Ahh, it’s like every other acronym once you know what it means it makes sense… thanks 😊
@JAB. I hope you are wrong about this - we really need to push for universal health care. I ran a company for decades, and paid out millions to health insurance companies only to see copays and premiums rise every year while coverages did not get better (usually). If I were in that position today I would gladly pay a corporate tax to have Medicare cover all my employees and their families!
Speaking of abortion, how does banning it help people who are struggling and really do need help? Rhetorical question obviously, but your excellent comments prompted it.