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.
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
How is it only 62%?! Who actually looks at their medical bill and thinks, “Yep, this is accurate and absolutely worth every penny”? I have health insurance, and I still avoid going to the doctor unless I’m practically dying because I simply can’t afford it.
And yet, I’m stuck paying nearly $10k a year for insurance—just in case something catastrophic happens—only to still face massive copays, out-of-pocket costs, and coverage denials. It’s completely counterintuitive.
The system is broken.
Screw the insurance industry.
Screw the state of medical care in the U.S.Healthcare shouldn’t be a privilege—it’s a human right. Normalize that.
i say this as a huge supporter of single payer but also as a trans person.
in an ideal world, a national health system is great but then you also look at places like the uk where wait times for gender affirming care are up to four years and both puberty blockers are on the verge of being banned by the left of centre party.
The reasons for that, though, are largely because the NHS has been under attack by the right wing for more than a decade. It was a huge inflection point for Brexit, and there’s been a major effort to break it so they can point at how broken it is.
Don’t use the NHS issues to judge how such a system would or should work for trans care. It’s been actively sabotaged.
my point was that it’s susceptible to it in the first place… and the attacks on trans care come from both the tories and labour
All social* systems are susceptible to bigotry, and fascistic capitalism most of all.
Labour isn’t perfect by any stretch, but pretending both sides have been equally to blame is just as unfortunate in the UK as it is in the US, Germany, Australia, and Canada. One side may be slow to put your needs to the fore, but make no mistake, the other wants you dead.
The other 38% are either young and healthy enough to have never have had to deal with the healthcare industry or are just so staunchly individualistic they’d rather die than let someone else get a ‘handout’. ‘Taxes are theft’, ‘why should MY money go to blah’, me me me. Lack of empathy and/or a very naïve understanding of what society is actually for.
Red state here - the biggest argument I hear all the time is that if we get public healthcare the care quality will go down and we will have to wait 8 hrs to get seen for a heart attack. They point to Canada’s system and say most Canadians wish they had our system. So the answer, as always, is brainwashing.
and say most Canadians wish they had our system
So they lie.
Don’t forget government death panels.
Oh how could I forget about the government death panels! Yeah we’d much rather leave that to the insurance companies.
. They point to Canada’s system and say most Canadians wish they had our system.
Most Canadians are extremely glad they don’t have our system.
Sounds like 62% of Americans should have voted for the candidate that might have actually made that possible.
Candidates*
Real change will come from house and senate.
Might is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence.
Its important to make incremental progress. Kamala was a standard dem like Joe. Still they are open to hearing good ideas; compared to Trump.
Trump is open to hearing good ideas too. Problem is, “good” is highly subjective.
Bernie Sanders tried but did not get enough votes when he ran for president because the government paying for your healthcare is apparently bad for some reason.
Its bad for profits. And since the government is run by people with a vested interest in profits, it wont change anytime soon. All the oligarchs have to do is convince enough rubes that universal healthcare is bad, and it will never see the light of day.
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.
But what about the donors?
The Democrats have the infrastructure. Screw the big donors. Run an actual grass roots campaign. It’s not like they can do any worse at this point.
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.)
Some of Tim Walz’s largest donors are health insurance and professionals. They have financial incentives to keep the status quo. With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans?
Walz doesn’t have a seat anymore. And what do the Democrats have to lose by actually moving left?
I’d say the reason the Democrats won’t move left is because the party elite have a lot of donors they’d piss off by actually supporting serious leftist economic policy.
Maybe I’m wrong. Hell, I’d love to be wrong. But I’ve sort of lost hope that the democratic party is ever going to deliver.
Yeah I get that. But it would be the kind of move that shakes up losing all of the swing states, the popular vote, and both legislative bodies. Political parties want to get elected and “normal” campaigning isn’t doing it anymore. A few more losses like this and there won’t be a democratic party.
Why even complain? We all know Dems will vote blue no matter who next cycle
Well tbf the reason I’m complaining is that the status quo sucks and isn’t going to get better, even if the Dems sweep next election.
Only 62%?
Why would you want to deny another person health coverage? How does denying another person health coverage help you?
America is a cult of suffering. If you aren’t suffering you’re either freeloading or not working enough. Everyone is responsible for them selves, and so “paying for someone else’s healthcare” is an absolute no go.
Everyone needs healthcare, so it’s a perfect opportunity for grifting and crony capitalism.
Also, cruelty.
They want people to die.
So, the other arguments given here are disingenuous. The real argument that would be made (not by me) is that they don’t trust the government to run something as important as health care. They think the government would be more wasteful and capricious in its decisions than the current system. They’ve been convinced that nationalized health care systems are simply worse.
And when you elect Republicans, that’s true!
‘Black people will exploit it’
Ultimately, what it comes down to is that white racist are worried about black people having an easier time will enable them to get a leg up on white people.
I think it is more general. Like all minorities and the poor. Sucsessful people feel like those below them just didn’t try hard enough. They can’t understand that often lack of motivation is a medical issue more than a choice. Same with skinny people and fat people. It’s an “I can do it, why can’t they” situation for most people who would say no.
Most Americans are not “successful”, in the same way that most Americans are not “skinny” (far from it).
and yet a good portion of y’all voted for trump and the republicans…
Only 23% of people living in the USA voted for Trump
That is 65% more than the percentage of people that, according to this post, dont want health coverage for everyone
23% voted for Trump, and 55% also indirectly did by not voting or going third-party.
The average American is stupid and thus easily confused. Hell, half of us read at a 6th grade level…
And a lot of people who want healthcare didn’t bother voting.
Your inactions have consequences.
“but I couldn’t vote for the Democrats in good faith!!!”
Well now you’ve helped elect Trump. Hope that aligns with your morals!
(General “you”, not you specifically)
Aren’t you concerned at all with the large number of people that are under represented by their choices in the voting booth?
State level electoral reform will give more political parties the chance to be involved in future elections with no chance of a spoiler effect.
People would be free to vote for their preferred candidate, safe in the knowledge that their vote would still be counted against the republicans.
Who could say no to more democracy? Who could possibly be against ensuring their fellow country men/women/and more are fully represented to the best of our ability? Republicans? Yes, of course they are against democracy. How about the democratic party? Do they support democracy?
More political parties means more chances to beat the Republicans. More political parties means more people are involved in politics. More people being involved in politics statistically means more votes for the democratic party.
Why is the DNC saying no to these easy extra votes? Why wouldn’t democrats use every tool at their disposal to defeat the republicans?
Perhaps they view their poltical party to be more important then the nation state itself. Party over country, at all costs.
Aren’t you concerned at all with the large number of people that are under represented by their choices in the voting booth?
Yes, but they should still vote. Anyone who didn’t vote decided that they’re okay with Trump. Generally, anyone not okay with Trump who didn’t vote is either stupid, ignorant, or lying about not being okay with Trump being elected.
State level electoral reform will give more political parties the chance to be involved in future elections with no chance of a spoiler effect.
Yeah, I agree. But you don’t have that. So we work with the system we have.
Who could say no to more democracy? Who could possibly be against ensuring their fellow country men/women/and more are fully represented to the best of our ability? Republicans? Yes, of course they are against democracy. How about the democratic party? Do they support democracy?
If you think that Trump is worse than the Democrat candidate, then you vote Democrat. Deciding not to vote doesn’t give you more democracy, it gives you less.
More political parties means more chances to beat the Republicans. More political parties means more people are involved in politics. More people being involved in politics statistically means more votes for the democratic party.
Not with FPTP. I’m in Canada, where we realistically have a 3-party system. What happens in some parts of the country (including Federally) is the Left vote gets split and the Right vote often ends up winning.
Why is the DNC saying no to these easy extra votes? Why wouldn’t democrats use every tool at their disposal to defeat the republicans?
If it were that simple and easy, they’d do it. But it’s not. If the Right doesn’t split too, and if FPTP isn’t replaced with something better, then the Left has just screwed itself out of ever being elected again.
Tbf the Democrats aren’t particularly interested in addressing healthcare either… the money has to be removed from the system for it to improve. It is currently working as designed.
So you’d rather live in a fascist dictatorship than a neoliberal semidemocracy?
The world doesn’t have to be this way, dragonfucker. False dichotomies only keep us in our place.
Yeah, you could have protests, and direct action, or even a revolution. Which are all way harder in a fascist dictatorship. You voted for the dichotomy.
Why though, many of them voted for Trump, next month antivax RFK Jr. will be health minister. Trump has claimed a healthcare plan will be ready “next week” for the past 8 years. People wanted Obamacare gone. So what do you want? Healthcare or no healthcare?
They want obamacare gone, but they like their affordable care act.
What this country really needs is some RomneyCare.
I think that country needs a revolution, after which a completely new constitution needs to be written with a complete new governing system. Getting rid of corruption. Dividing the massive country into smaller countries, with rules and regulations on a smaller scale. Because every state is different. It’s going to cause a lot of death, misery, suffering, but sometimes you need to endure extra pain to get better. Like surgery, it’s painful but without it you will end up with more pain and suffering in the long run. But you need insurance for that so most Americans probably don’t know what I’m talking about.
And the other 40% rely on the help and care of others every day while blabbering on about being “self-made” which actually just means “selfish asshole”.
America just voted to allow Ramaswamy and Elon to cut government by 75%. This will absolutely include healthcare. What will happen to that 75% that was under government? It will go to the private sector obviously. Now they can can become even richer. Holy shit Ramaswamy is like a real life Shooter McGavin
They need Congress to slaughter their sacred cows for that to happen.
Thats not going to happen.
The only thing they love more than bitching about government overspending, is benefiting from it. The whole DOGE will have less power in the government than the meme it’s based on, and the people who will run it are looking to line their pockets with your money for the least effort on their part.
elon and ramaswamy are idiots sure but republicans will absolutely gut medicaid (first since it’s easier to take from disabled people than seniors) and the aca.
They wont gut Medicaid, they’re just going to force it to take on huge debt while they cut taxes for the 1% and then say that it’s Democrat’s fault for overspending.
Naw that one they will. They will straight up sell it to a company like UHC.
62% seems low.
Too bad they did not vote that way cause who knows how many are going to lose coverage in the coming years.
I tried to explain to a luddite like 10 years ago that their healthcare costs would go down. He said he doesn’t care, he doesn’t want to pay for someone else’s healthcare. He had insurance through work. I tried explaining to him that THAT’S the whole point of insurance, you pay for other people’s healthcare, you’re not just paying into an account that you then draw from. Your premium goes to someone else’s cancer treatment. He said I didn’t understand insurance. Dude had 3 kids too. So his healthcare costs proportionally to mine would have been waaayyy lower.
Like, it’s a no brainer.
He said I didn’t understand insurance.
Reminds me of fiscal conservatives that would always lecture people on economics, while not having even the slightest understanding of how it works.
What was that figure like before that fella got shot?
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.
38% probably on Medicare/Medicaid
lol was gonna say the same based on this headline
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.
There are very few states that can handle the cost of state-funded health care, and unfortunately they would be faced with negotiating care from for-profit enterprises that have no care other than maximizing profits.
It needs to be a “from the ground up” service, which we had at one point - we used to have a lot of state, municipal and county hospitals, but the majority of them got shuttered and replaced with for-profit enterprises - where the state creates facilities owned/operated by the state and can control pricing with no expectation for a profit to be made. That’s how you get care for all at government prices, we can’t keep shoveling money at for-profit businesses.
A lot of states are larger, both geographically and economically, than many European countries. What’s stopping those states from doing it?
You’re not comparing apples to apples.
Those EU countries have a hoard of social services available, from pre-school to free/relatively inexpensive higher education, to medical services, unions, pensions and elder care…a lot of services Americans have to pay for on top of any exchange of health care premium for state health care tax. I mean, there’s a huge difference between EU workers’ compensation, housing costs, and benefits work compared to US workers, how companies are taxed and pay into social services, and to make them comparable would require massive change. The US has faced “taxes are evil” propaganda for easily 40 plus years now, and getting the funding to create a care system from both citizens and corporations will require a miracle.
If universal healthcare is cheaper than private insurance (and most say it is) why not simply charge the citizens of, for example, California 4/5th of what they’re currently paying? What am I missing here? If they did that in my state it would save me around $100/mo
This is an interesting idea, but I don’t see where that is ever going to be effective either given the massive logistical undertaking that would be required in order to deal with states managing non-profit medical facilities. The only option is to somehow circumvent the middle men.
Circumventing the middle man is exactly why for-profit enterprises resist state care with everything they have. The government is a powerful negotiator that can undercut for-profit business because they don’t need to profit from the work being done.
Yes, but you could say the exact same thing about the creation of single payer state insurance pools could you not? They can force negotiations on medical providers at the state level, and force them to accept state backed insurance if they wish to conduct business in that state. That seems like a way simpler solution than needing to come up with massive amounts of logistical infrastructure that already exists.
Not as effective as the government as a whole. Also singles that state put among others as you said, placing additional adversity between the state and existing or potential employers.
Look, if it were simple, we could do it. Even if much of the difficulty is artificially created by businesses and other monied interests, it still exists and one state doesn’t exist in a vacuum where businesses wouldn’t have the option to leave. Other states would undermine the attempt for political or financial gain. It’s not simple.
I totally agree that no solution is going to be simple. I think what I envisioned was an inter-state compact where it would make it essentially impossible for medical providers to pull away. If we just use the West Coast as an example, what if Washington, Oregon, and California were to create a public option risk pool that could then be joined by other blue states? That is really the idea that I think is the most sensible, and potentially feasible to implement over time.
This is basically how it works in Canada, but when the health care system gets worse during conservative control of the provinces people aren’t blaming the conservatives and province they are blaming the federal government and the liberal party.
People have literally zero idea or care about what level controls things, they just want to blame “the other guy”
-
Here’s the thing… having health coverage doesn’t mean jack crap.
I’ve told my story before, it got best of’d on reddit and such, but it bears repeating why we need Universal Health Care:
tl;dr lost my doctors due to an insurance change 4 weeks in to a 6 week open heart surgery recovery…
In 2018, my company was in the process of being sold. No big deal, above my paygrade, nothing for me to worry about.
Then I got sick right after Thanksgiving. Really bad heartburn that lasted 5 days. It wasn’t heartburn. I had a heart attack. 12/3/2018 I had open heart surgery, single bypass, and that started a 6 week recovery clock.
On 1/1/2019, the sale of my company closed and we officially had new owners. I also officially lost all of my doctors because the new employers don’t do Kaiser in Oregon. They do it in WA and CA, but each state has to be negotiated and they never had presence here.
1/2/2019 I start working with Aetna to find doctors, hospitals, etc. Beyond the cardiologist I need a new pharmacist, podiatrist, diabetes care and a general “doctor” doctor.
Fortunately, my new employer is a big enough fish, they have their own concierge at Aetna and she gets me into the Legacy Health system.
On 1/3/2019 I start developing complications, but I don’t know it at the time. It starts with a cough. All the time. Then, when I try to lay down, like to sleep, I’m drowning, literally choking and gagging.
The concierge and I try to get an appointment, we’re told 2-3 months. For a dude still recovering from open heart surgery? Best they could do is 2 weeks. 1/14/2019.
I can’t lay down to sleep so I buy a travel neck pillow and sleep sitting up.
I get to see the new doctor at the “official” end of the 6 week recovery. He doesn’t know me or my history so he wants to run tests.
I’m sitting at home playing video games and waiting on test results when the call comes… Congestive heart failure. Report to the ER immediately.
My heart developed an irregular heart beat, which caused fluid build up in my chest. They admitted me and were getting ready to pull fluid off me.
“What happened to your foot?”
“I dunno, what happened to my foot? I can’t feel my feet.”
Remember when I said I was sitting around playing video games, waiting for test results? Yeah, my foot was touching a radiator and I didn’t know it. 3rd degree burns, first four toes. Pinkie was spared.
So I’m in the hospital a week. I lose 4 liters of water per day. 50 lbs. of water. No wonder I was drowning. Regular bandage changes.
So now I’m facing two procedures. Electrocardio version to fix my heart, skin grafts to fix my toes.
This whole time the new insurance covers 80% until I reach the out of pocket maximum of $6,500. Then it will cover 100%.
The old insurance? ER visit for heart attack, hospital admission, 8 days in the hospital, open heart bypass… $250. $100 for meds and all the oxygen bottles I can carry.
So we hit the out of pocket maximum almost immediately. My wife had a problem with her foot running through the Seattle airport. The doctor who did her toe amputation was decided to be out of network so that was another $1,100.
I was never unemployed through all this. I had enough vacation and sick time banked to cover it. Cobra didn’t apply. Continuity of care didn’t apply because the new hospital DID have a cardiac department. Buying my old insurance wasn’t an option, it was far too expensive without employer backing. Income is too high for assistance (thank god) and I took steps to max out my HSA account, which is good because we drained it twice.
Three 1 week hospital stays (2 for me, 1 for my wife), multiple ER visits, two more major medical procedures… That would be enough to break most people even with good insurance.
So if you read any of that, let me ask you something… Why does the quality of my health care and my quality of life have to depend on who I work for and what insurance companies they choose to work with?
Why does the quality of my health care and my quality of life have to depend on who I work for and what insurance companies they choose to work with?
Because Nixon was in bed with big business, then Ford fumbled the gas crisis, and finally Carter naively trusted Congress to transition from employee mandates to single payer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States
Aside from agreeing with you. Question. Why didn’t cobra apply? I would have thought it could. And did you have an option to pay the full cost of coverage out of pocket for any length of time? Not that any of this should matter, just curious in case I, or anyone I know, ends up in the same situation.
. Why didn’t cobra apply?
Because he didn’t leave his company. His company changed their insurance.
I thought it was more about the insurance than the company. :( it should be.
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.
