1142
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Summary

A Gallup poll shows 62% of Americans believe the government should ensure universal healthcare coverage—the highest support in over a decade.

While Democratic backing remains strong at 90%, support among Republicans and Independents has also grown since 2020.

Public frustration with the for-profit healthcare system has intensified following the arrest of a suspect in the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, reportedly motivated by anger at the industry.

Recent controversies, including Anthem’s rollback of anesthesia coverage cuts, and debates over Medicare privatization highlight ongoing dissatisfaction with the system.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago

Not "coverage", "affordable coverage". I don't want coverage through whatever capitalist exploit insurance company. I want affordable healthcare without lifesucking middlemen

[-] foo@programming.dev 9 points 1 week ago

What about unaffordable healthcare only available to the top 1% -- project 2025

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 32 points 1 week ago

* that actually pays out when you need something.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 32 points 1 week ago

Yet, they keep voting for the opposite. People seem too dumb to be allowed good things.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Then vote like you’re not fucking idiots.

[-] XTL@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 week ago

Too late now.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 week ago

Were the 38% against, neutral, or just didn't answer?

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 week ago

They have some form of decent coverage through work and no one in their personal sphere is overly sick to the point of causing them pain. They wish to block others from getting adequate access least they lose some advantage over them. They're squarely in the F U I have mine camp. Of course as soon as something happens and theirs isn't good enough, they'll have a change of heart, while everyone else still in their camp holds them down.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Corno@lemm.ee 27 points 1 week ago

It's good that the majority support it, but it's also concerning that 38% didn't. The USA should have universal healthcare. I don't want to say where I live or where I don't live but if you live in a country which doesn't have universal healthcare I genuinely feel bad for you.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's because they don't understand how the system works. Most people I know who are against it always go straight to "how could we pay for it". Not understanding that countries that do it work directly with the manufacturers of the medicine and hospitals so they get much better rates. 2022 showed 6500 per person for full coverage in Canada. 12,500 per person in the U.S.... with no coverage for the most part.

We know some Republican candidates know this as well, which is why Desantis promised lower health care costs in Florida by cutting a deal with Canada to import their lower cost drugs by trying to skirt buying them from the companies the are giving tax breaks to and not addressing.

Years later... No drugs have been shipped from Canada and no deals were settled because Canada doesn't want to ship their drugs to Florida and have shortages.

Much like an insurance company can say, I'm only going to pay $150 for that MRI instead of the $1,600 quoted, the government can do the same, and instead of lining the pockets of middlemen, it comes back as savings to the people. In general I believe I saw if we implemented a plan like Canadas, the average American would save 20% on their income taxes, and have full coverage. Meaning no longer having co-pays, deductibles, out of network doctors, etc. etc.

To me it just says, if you want further specialists outside of the ones provided, you can pay for them just like you do now. And the government could pitch in only the cost that they would pay towards a standard patient procedure.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

"Medicare for all" became a slogan because it's insanely more efficient than private healthcare. And we'll pay for it with taxes, the same way we pay for anything. But if your taxes do go up, it will be by less than you were paying previously, so people are still saving money. They can only use the most reductive and cliche arguments because the evidence is all against them. A public health plan would be cheaper and provide more care.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] brezel@piefed.social 26 points 1 week ago

somehow this doesn't correlate with the > 50% that just voted against it.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago

Show me where Kamala or the DNC were promoting Medicare for all (or any improvements to healthcare for that matter) in this election cycle? And don’t say negotiating prices on 10 more prescription drugs or I’ll know you’re completely unserious.

[-] brezel@piefed.social 6 points 1 week ago

i did't say that dems are for it. i said reps are against it. maybe take more time to take in what someone says before arguing against something else.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

Again, there’s that 30-40% Party Of No crowd that is likely the same starve the beast pro-Trump voters we’ve seen in polls time and again. The ones probably going to need those very same services, if they already aren’t using medicare/-aid.

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

That is why universal healthcare risk pools need to start at the state level. The goal needs to be to lock out the subsidization of those who are voting for predatory policies. This accomplishes a few important things.

  • It will systemically punish Republican voters in Republican led states.

  • Over time it will (in theory) massively shift the public consciousness in those areas around how badly they are getting fucked.

  • It removes the necessity of reliance on a federal change in order to begin the process of legislative reform.

This is obviously not a perfect solution, but I don't see this happening in any other way. There is roughly a (0%) chance we see universal healthcare implemented at the national level first.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

The midterm campaign should literally just be, "Death to Health Insurance, Public Health Now".

No other issues. Campaign on that as a mandate. If we can only change one big thing at a time then we should only promise one big thing.

[-] witten@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Historically we can change zero big things at a time. But I agree with you. Our rate of change has got to change. (Mathematics/physics joke goes here.)

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 week ago

too bad it only matters what the 1% want. can't wait to see what those 62% will do when their retirement money gets pillaged too. spoiler alert: nothing

[-] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Maybe they should have voted then, last election most people couldn't even be bothered.

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

I think part of the problem with that argument is that only a small percentage of Dems want real coverage and the rest want status quo insurance crap- and this coming from someone who did vote.

I still remember when ACA happened. The smart people who wanted single payer or similar were shunned out the room. If I was a slightly stupider or slightly more vengeful men, I too might have gotten disengaged from the political system.

[-] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago

Except if the dems had solid majorities for years they could be pushed left easily. Look at California. Not as left as Lemmy wants obviously but so much further left than the majority of the country.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Shame that Americans are stupid and voted in racists, fascist, classist grifters that believe healthcare is only for the ultra wealthy and will make sure the next United Healthcare CEO can deny now medical coverage.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

That's nearly 2/3 of Americans, a pretty strong majority. Those other 38% of Americans can go fuck themselves, right along with the corporate oligarchs they worship.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 16 points 1 week ago

Too bad it only takes 30% of the population to control the government and the Reich wing has those people under control. :/

[-] ech@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

They wouldn't control shit without half that 62% sitting at home, implicitly supporting it with their inaction.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Infomatics90@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

Agree 100%. The USA should have universal healthcare.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] yarr@feddit.nl 7 points 1 week ago

What % of Congress agrees? There's lots of stuff the public wants that Congress doesn't get lobbied to get. Health insurance companies spent $113 million on lobbying Congress JUST in 2024. Until the public can pony up that kind of money, Congress is going to listen to their masters.

[-] ThomasCrappersGhost@feddit.uk 7 points 1 week ago

What was that figure like before that fella got shot?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
1142 points (100.0% liked)

News

23600 readers
2840 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS