I provided a poll that said you were wrong and when you tell people the truth it drops to 30% or so.
why are you so against telling people the truth?
ol yea because you can't pass your fantasy healthcare without lying to people.
You provided a poll that, after establishing whether the taker supports or opposes MFA, then presents either an argument for or against it.
It does not gauge support after exposure to
both arguments which would be the best way of measuring true support; assuming of course you can control for how each argument is presented. Moreover, the Kaiser baseline support, before presentation of arguments for or against, is just above 50% contrasting starkly with the ~70% levels featured by just about every other contemporary poll on the matter within the past year; i.e. it is an outlier. There is a reason any serious political analyst leans on aggregate polls rather than individual polling. If you were to average baseline support, then apply the modifiers featured here, that both add and subtract support, you would see that the majority supports MFA.
In your fantasy world however, apparently only arguments that stand against MFA count, and arguments for it are 'lies', so I suppose you would simply discard any such analysis off-hand.
ol you won't have to spend a dime. just ignore that 30-40% increase in your payroll tax.
ol yea by the way medicare doesn't cover everything so you need a suppliment insurance plan to cover the stuff that medicare doesn't.
those plans will cost you an extra 200-300 a month.
Actually, every version of MFA I'm aware of is comprehensive to the point that no supplemental coverage is required. Again, in Canada as an example, supplemental covers only niche things like glasses, dental, cosmetic surgery and certain prescriptions. Aside from facelifts and the like (obviously) current MFA proposals address these gaps as well. Thus, private supplemental health insurance still exists in Canada, but it is A: not necessary, and B: the coverage is marginal. In the case of MFA, the market for this would be even smaller per capita, and said coverage even less compelling due to the superiority of MFA coverage vs Canadian SP.
Moreover there are many ways to raise taxes for MFA; not all of the burden has to fall upon payroll, nor have I heard of any plan that purports to distribute tax burden in this way. That said, again, there is polling that explicitly features majority support, even assuming tax increases; since you apparently missed it:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/cnn-poll-healthcare-taxes/index.html
Your doctor that you have been with for the past 20 years? ol yea he doesn't accept it because well he isn't going to work for 40% less.
the hospital might take it.
Again, MFA purports to dramatically lower the cost of all inputs to the healthcare system, which includes education/training and the cost of supplies for private practices; two major financial pressures which demand high doctor salaries, thus helping to offset any salary haircut (which is not going to be nearly as high as 40%).
get out of your pie in the sky view and you find people don't want to be worse off.
ol yea if you can see your doctor he will see you next year.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/02/nhs-hospitals-ordered-cancel-routine-operations-january/
cheers for medicare for all.
You'll have to provide a better example of the failings of SP than a surge during flu season in the midst of one of the worst austerity programmes that has ever faced the NHS per a Conservative party that wants to systemically dismantle and privatize it. As mentioned, you'll want to provide evidence of systemic failings relative to US healthcare.
But sure, if you want to talk about 'being worse off', allow me to counterpoint:
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...e-health-care-among-comparable-oecd-countries
https://www.iflscience.com/health-a...ry-global-ranking-nations-healthcare-systems/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30994-2/fulltext
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...7-international-comparison-reflects-flaws-and
Wow, that sure is worth paying 2.5x as much as the rest of the OECD per capita; really getting our bang for the buck there; these also show that countries with SP/UHC systems, including the UK typically have
better doctor appointment wait times, while the US has the highest rate of deaths amenable to health care, etc, and consistently features one of the lowest performing health care systems among wealthy countries.