When I look at polls I always have to remind myself of something I figured out when I used to run for office in college. I was elected freshman class president and, in my senior year, an at-laerge senator with more votes than any other candidate running. What I figured out at the time-- in the midst of the Vietnam War is that we start off with about a third of the people favoring, a third of the people opposing and a third of the people not sure or not caring about just about any contentious issue. At my school, it was that way over the war. It was that way when right-wingers tried impeaching me for hiring The Doors (for $400) to play a concert at the college. (It was before they were famous; they became famous the next week, but the complaint the right-wingers had wasn't just about The Doors. It was because I was hiring all sorts of what they insisted was garbage, from Jimi Hendrix, the Jefferson Airplane, Otis Redding, the Dead, Joni Mitchell, Pink Floyd, The Byrds, Ravi Shankar... on and on. And the concerts were free for students. I won the impeachment vote.) All the way back to the American Revolution, you have progressives fighting for our freedom (1/3 of the colonialists), conservatives joining the British to kill the Patriots (also a 1/3) and another third too busy or scared or something to care one way or the other). Once the arguments start, each side can win over some of the third that is undecided or uninterested and maybe even persuade a tiny sliver of voters from the opposing point of view. Like when the impeachment thing came up, I reminded the voters that they didn't have to pay to see The Doors, that since so many of them didn't chose to go, we sold seats to the public and made a huge profit and that, "just look at the charts this week, "Light My Fire" is #1; this band is going places.Now, take it from me, Medicare-For-All is every bit as good as "Light My Fire" (the long version). And progressives are winning the country over on that. The new YouGov poll for The Economist this week is exhaustive. Before we examine how voters see Medicare-For-All, let's take a quick look at how they see the Green New Deal. 63% of voters answered affirmatively when asked if the world’s climate is changing as a result of human activity, while 28% said the climate is changing but NOT because of human activity and 10% assert that the climate is not changing. Now look at this:34% support it, 31% oppose it and 35% aren't sure or have no real idea what it is-- a third, a third, a third, more or less. Now let's get to Medicare-For-All. When asked "Do you support or oppose Medicare for all?" this was the result-- NOT a third, a third, a third:
• Support strongly- 30%• Support somewhat- 22%• Oppose somewhat- 9%• Oppose strongly- 24%• Not sure- 14%
52% approve, 33% disapprove and 14% aren't sure. That;'s the good news. However, there's some good news for conservatives (from both parties) as well. When asked the question this way: "Do you support or oppose a national health plan in which all Americans get their health insurance from the federal government and private health insurance companies are eliminated?" the results change drastically.
• Support strongly- 19% (down 11 points)• Support somewhat- 18% (down 4)• Oppose somewhat- 13% (up 4)• Oppose strongly- 30% (up 6)• Not sure- 21% (up 7 points)
It isn't just Trump, McConnell and the whole GOP that oppose Medicare for All. Remember, conservatives opposed Medicare for anyone for years and years. And that means conservative Democrats as well. Today, among the viable presidential candidates, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris (who doesn't quite understand what it is) and Cory Booker all say they are for Medicare For All, although one would not be unfair to realize only Bernie would fight for it tooth and nail. McKensey Pete has never made a clear statement about supporting or opposing it and just says whatever the audience he's speaking to wants to hear; that's who he is. Beto used to say he was for it but now admits he isn't. And Biden is not only against it, he's campaigning vigorously against it. Vigorously and-- hey it's Joe Biden-- very dishonestly, using GOP talking points. His own plan incremental plan, expanding Obamacare, isn't bad, but it doesn't fundamentally change much, just props up the current unsustainable Sickness Industrial Complex-- and the way he talks about it is filled with lies. For example, as reported in the L.A. Times this week, "Biden warns that walking away from Obamacare could leave a large swath of the country vulnerable to losing coverage, an untrue GOP scare tactic. Bernie accuses Biden of using the same tactics as Trump and his campaign donors in the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to mischaracterize his Medicare for all plan. Bernie: "I traveled all over the country to fight the repeal of Obamacare. But I will not be deterred from ending the corporate greed that creates dysfunction in our health care system. We must pass Medicare for All."Biden's plan "still fundamentally preserves the employer-based health insurance system that most working-age Americans rely on for coverage. It builds off the health insurance system created by the Affordable Care Act, with targeted adjustments that appear aimed at fixing some of the law’s shortcomings. Biden’s plan envisions creating a new government health plan akin to Medicare-- popularly called a 'public option'-- that any American could elect to purchase if they are unhappy with their commercial health plan option. It’s not a buy-in to the actual Medicare program that Biden had earlier signaled would be the linchpin of his program, but a new public insurance system styled after Medicare."Say Republicans will put a billion joules of energy into defeating Medicare For All. They will also put exactly the same billion joules of energy into defeating Biden's much less helpful plan. So why both with incrementalism and starting off by asking for something less than the best? In Biden's personal case... he gets an awful lot of financial support from anti-Medicare For All interests. Besides, the courts are in the process of striking down Obamacare, so why bother fighting for something completely imperfect instead just saying everyone is entitled to Medicare, not just the elderly-- and adding vision, mental, dental and hearing-care? That why over half the voters like it.Yesterday, during his speech at George Washington University, Bernie challenged the other Democrats running to reject donations from private health insurance and pharmaceutical interests. "You can't change a corrupt system by taking its money. Candidates who are not willing to take [the 'no health insurance and pharma money' pledge] should explain to the American people why those interests believe their campaigns are a good investment."Bernie continued: "People are telling me that in the year 2019, after Medicare has already been around for over 50 years, when we have all kinds of technology, that somehow we really can't do it over a four-year period. And to answer the question, we're being pretty conservative here. I think it can be done quicker."
