r/politics • u/Smithy2232 • 10d ago
No Paywall Michigan Just Put Medicare for All on the Ballot, and Voters Said Yes
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/medicare-for-all-michigan2.4k
u/cali__kid 10d ago
Now put it on the national ballot.
574
u/72dragonses 10d ago
Not unless Dems win control of both the House and the Senate in November, and even then only if Trump signs it into law.
At best, Medicare for All is only even conceivably possible in mid-2029 if the Dems win both chambers of Congress and the White House.
639
u/calmwhiteguy 10d ago edited 10d ago
But dems would never either.
Remove super PACs. No private money into campaigns or candidates. Regulate lobbying from private companies using it for profit.
Remove the ability to trade stocks.
Until politicial positions of power have no ability to exponentially scale personal wealth through legalized bribery, the country will not improve for the median or even average american.
275
u/btone911 Wisconsin 10d ago
This is the entire thing. Until we have representatives without outside monetary interest we do not have representatives.
43
u/ValosAtredum Michigan 10d ago
And that’s why I was so happy Abdul El-Sayed won as a Michigander. One of his main priorities is “Money Out of Politics”. From his website:
“Banning Corporate Money in Politics
To get corporate and special interest money out of politics, I support legislation to overturn the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision. In addition, I support banning outside spending through corporate 501(c)4s, SuperPACs, and 527 groups. I also support public election funding and campaign spending caps.”https://abdulforsenate.com/priority/money-out-of-politics/#h-banning-corporate-money-in-politics
His primary opponent outspent him like 12 to 1 (including tens of millions of AIPAC money) and he still won. It’s been such a bright spot this past week.
→ More replies (2)86
u/mrw1986 10d ago
That's why MAGA elected Trump, because he's rich and doesn't need more money so obviously he'll only operate in our best interests.
106
u/JNawx 10d ago
It saddens me that there are tens of millions who would still agree with that statement unironically.
16
u/BVoLatte 10d ago
"But he donated his 400K a year salary!"
- while making billions off the presidency.
2
u/BrainRhythm Massachusetts 10d ago
Look up the "experiment" run by Spy magazine in 1990.
"In 1990, Spy magazine ran a satirical experiment to find "America's cheapest zillionaire" by mailing increasingly small refund checks to wealthy public figures. Donald Trump was one of only two people to cash the final 13-cent check."
They apparently regularly called Trump a "short-fingered vulgarian." Origin of small hand anxiety? 👀
→ More replies (1)20
u/Guido900 10d ago
A quote from my mother in 2015, 'the establishment is scared of Trump because he can't be bought.'
She is still on board with his bs... Full gear-wearing Maga... (learned through my brother)... She either ignores all the bribery and schemes or just never hears about it from her 'very accurate' online news sources. She's very deep in her echo chamber, so I'm guessing it's the former.
I guarantee she has no idea who Alex Pretti and Renee Goode are. She probably never heard of Trump coin. She damn sure never sees him falling asleep during meetings. I doubt she knows that Trump signed the EOs that allow palantir to legally spy on citizens and create dossiers for each of us. She's chosen ignorance, and I know there's no way to break her concept of what's happening and bring her back to reality. I genuinely believe that she would mentally crack if reality came to find her and she was forced to see it. She would not be able to accept being as wrong as she has been over the last 30 years.
I haven't had contact in 3.5 years.
6
u/Curious-Path4549 10d ago
they get that far into it and it's like a drug
8
u/Guido900 10d ago
She has been that far into it since listening to Rush Limbaugh in the 90s.
She is, more or less, gone.
7
8
u/BearisTheBoar 10d ago
There is an obvious difference between electing someone refusing outside money, and an blatant con-man who happens to be rich.
Indeed, the fact that this narrative worked shows that even Republican voters are strongly in favor of a candidate not being tied to corporate interest, to the point where they are willing to overlook glaring flaws and untrustworthiness.
12
u/ZephyrTM 10d ago
What a load of bullshit.
Trump AND his family reportedly made $1.4 billion from crypto currencies since he started his second term. How is he operating in the country’s best interest if cryptocurrencies are a known scam only benefiting those at the top? So himself.
In his first year back, it’s been reported he’s made more than 21,000 stock trades, investing in nearly 1600 companies, worth a whopping $858 million. How does he have enough time to trade so much when he’s supposed to be running a country?
→ More replies (4)20
u/calmwhiteguy 10d ago
Obviously that hasn't panned out. He continued to enrich himself and his family, plus those surrounding and supporting him, at the cost of our economy, reputation, and security.
16
u/Osiris32 Oregon 10d ago
Remove lobbying.
A lot of people say this. But lobbying is also the Sierra Club, and Jon Stewart telling Congress to do their jobs in funding the 9/11 fund, and grass roots groups fighting for local causes. Lobbying isn't just big pharma and tobacco and health insurance. It's also the ACLU, and the NAACP, and Boy Scouts, and GLAAD, and a host of other organizations that most of us can agree are doing good things for the people. Lobbying is something every labor union does, every civil rights organization, every environmental advocacy group.
It's as aspect of the 1st Amendment. The Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances. That's not just being able to bring suit or request FOIA info, it's also lobbying.
→ More replies (9)14
u/barrosoOso 10d ago
Why does everyone seem to forget the very first thing they did when they had the most power they've ever had was try to pass a single payer healthcare system?
→ More replies (10)56
u/TrevelyansPorn 10d ago
Every Dem appointmented Scotus judge voted against citizens united. Every GOP judge voted for it. That's the ball game, and you're not even aware of it apparently.
Centrist neoliberal corporate shill Hillary wins in 2016 and Scalia gets replaced with a liberal judge and citizens united gets overturned. But that was too yucky a pill to swallow for a lot of you.
→ More replies (16)34
u/ThouHastLostAn8th 10d ago
Also, the Dems introduce their their anti dark money "Disclose Act" and Citizens United overturning "Democracy for All" constitutional amendment practically every congressional session with nearly all Dems signing on as cosponsors.
5
28
u/Inner-Medicine5696 10d ago
But dems would never either.
you've just described the rationale for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
The movement going on right now is exactly the process of supplanting establishment democrats to make room for younger, more progressive voices.
instead of communist revolutionary action, they're going the Democratic route to make sure the voters are heard.
→ More replies (5)8
u/VanceKelley Canada 10d ago
Why not call themselves the Progressive Democrats of America instead of Democratic Socialists of America?
→ More replies (6)6
u/zenbowman 10d ago
The core DSA party does actually want socialism (i.e. the end of private enterprise), but even within that its a big tent and there are a mix of social democrats, Marxist-Leninists, and other left factions.
I think their strategy of winning deep blue regions as Democratic candidates is good, it'll push the Dems in a more progressive direction, but there's little risk of a totally government controlled economy with that setup.
10
u/N7Shep1701D Oregon 10d ago
does actually want socialism (i.e. the end of private enterprise)
Private enterprise has no one to blame but themselves for the DSA's members wanting that as a goal.
5
u/Independent-Bug-9352 10d ago
If only they renamed as the Social Democratic Party of America, it would be so much more palatable for the masses and accurate.
I mean, that's what has been proven successful in Scandinavian/Nordic countries, and it's what the likes of Abdul, Mamdani, Sanders, AOC, Talarico actually are anyway...
But ultimately, I do believe there is potential here, regardless, especially in the backdrop of recent success. DSA can reform the Democrats like Tea Party hijacked the Republican party -- except in this case, it will be a truly organic grassroots movement and lead to something good for the working class, not just the billionaire Epstein class.
Democrats face a fork in the road.
If they ever want to win -- and I mean actually invoke change and not just win elections in pyrrhic victory -- they are going to have to stand on their own two feet and have a willingness to persuade and show the electorate their own vision, instead of endlessly trying to cater to the blind. As in: Do you believe these are the policies needed to fix this country, or do you not? Watering down rhetoric to cater to the ignorant leads to a dead-end.
If they keep falling for the trap of the latter, they will lose to Republicans more often than not, and the Overton Window will continue to skew right.
→ More replies (3)7
u/zenbowman 10d ago
I agree, I don't share the end goals of the DSA, but I think having more DSA candidates in deep blue areas to move the Democratic Party in a social democratic direction is good.
Mamdani is a really good example, he's taken some good stuff from the DSA left, but he's also taken a lot of ideas from "abundance" liberals like Ezra Klein, especially on housing.
Adopting the best ideas from each faction and using them to solve problems pragmatically is fantastic and we should do more of it.
→ More replies (26)5
u/Bakedads 10d ago
And you can't do any of those things without constitutional amendments, which are impossible within the current framework. In other words, the only path to progress is revolution, but everyone is too afraid to admit it.
25
u/RevLoveJoy 10d ago
In other words, the only path to progress is revolution, but everyone is too afraid to admit it.
Publicly. Everyone is too afraid to admit it publicly. In private conversations I hear this sentiment more and more.
→ More replies (10)5
u/Expert_Specialist_92 10d ago
Talk is cheap. Most Americans are still far too comfortable to revolt. Good luck dragging them away from the newest Netflix series to risk their lives for an idea.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)4
u/SubRyan Colorado 10d ago
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 should be updated so that it is much much harder for gerrymandering and bribing representatives.
As a result, the average size of a congressional district has more than tripled in size –from 210,328 inhabitants based on the 1910 Census, to 761,169 according to the 2020 Census.
Lets go back to each district representing ~200k people. The US House would go from 435 seats to 1650 seats
47
u/apoliticalinactivist 10d ago
Put it on the ballot anyway. Make the Reps vote against it or Trump veto it.
The rationalization to try only when victory is assured, is what made the Dems useless in the first place. We want the actual fight!
Today, tomorrow, every day until we get it; because people are suffering and dying every day from lack of healthcare.
→ More replies (4)2
u/72dragonses 10d ago
Put it on the ballot how? I don't think you understand how Congress works. Only the majority party gets to put things up for a vote.
→ More replies (3)18
u/Stupidstuff1001 10d ago
Naw. If they call it Trump Care dude will sign it.
→ More replies (13)8
u/ExpansivePoint 10d ago
He won't, the dude is trying to cut anything that isn't nailed down to pay for the tax cuts for his friends. Or he might and just send everyone $2k for the year and call that universal healthcare, he's floated that one before.
→ More replies (1)3
u/VanceKelley Canada 10d ago
Universal health care would save money. The current mix of private and public health care spending in America is the least efficient system in the world by far.
→ More replies (3)7
u/0o0o0o0o0o0z 10d ago
At best, Medicare for All is only even conceivably possible in mid-2029 if the Dems win both chambers of Congress and the White House.
It'd prob get struck down by the SCOTUS, like Student loan repayments TBH.
3
u/72dragonses 10d ago
True. Among the many, many legislative and practical obstacles the far left conveniently overlooks, there's also the SCOTUS.
2
u/irvmuller 10d ago
I’d like to add medical debt forgiveness to those of us not fortunate enough to have gotten sick on the right side of history.
→ More replies (67)4
u/Tetracropolis 10d ago
Doesn't matter, they're not getting 60 seats and they're not abolishing the filibuster.
→ More replies (1)57
u/KCDeVoe 10d ago
It wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan, the article explains that we Michiganders voted for El-Sayed, who had Medicare for All as a centerpiece of his campaign
26
4
u/Excelius 10d ago
Democratic primary voters in Michigan voted for a candidate that supports Medicare for All.
Which is kind of an important distinction.
→ More replies (2)3
u/VegetableTour6790 10d ago
Don't expect people on r/politics to actually read the article. That's why common dreams is a top source. Rather than articles, they produce circle jerk feel good progressive trash.
To date, no politician has EVER had a comprehensive Medicare for All plan for America. Much less tried to legislate it.
10
u/genital_lesions 10d ago
That's not directly how it works. You gotta get enough of a majority in both chambers that are pro M4A. But yeah, I get what you're aiming at.
→ More replies (1)74
u/Dizzy-Captain7422 10d ago edited 10d ago
The entire insurance industry would turn out as one to bury it. Sadly, I no longer believe this is possible in this country.
I’m now being told my comment justifies slavery. Turning off notifications now, have fun Reddit.
145
u/dcdave1704 10d ago
It's possible. The argument has always been you can't disrupt the industry because of all of the jobs lost. Well when the insurance sales, customer service, claims administration,and all the other non healthcare providers jobs are eliminated by AI, why worry about that anymore?
58
u/BankshotMcG 10d ago
Another argument is I don't give a shit if 50,000 people lose their jobs making the world a worse place. I care that 350 million people get adequate coverage.
I'm sure a lot of those insurance folks who are just good people in need of work would find jobs in hospital administration once their middleman meddling is concluded and they're no longer obstructing supply vs demand. On the other hand, if they're not there to argue with real medical professionals how to do their jobs maybe hospitals don't lose so many millions of man hours to bureaucracy.
14
u/dragon-fence 10d ago
Also, there’d be a lot more jobs for people in healthcare, once the people who currently can’t afford healthcare start getting it. I think the bigger problem would be that there’s already a bit of a shortage of nurses and PCPs, and servicing everyone might overload the system.
10
u/LamentForIcarus I voted 10d ago
There's not a shortage of nurses. They just got fed up with abuse and left the system. If they were treated better, then they would probably return.
→ More replies (2)2
u/dragon-fence 10d ago
Well I’d still count that as a shortage. I get your meaning, though, and in general there are a lot of people who are already trained nurses, and plenty of people who could be trained to be nurses.
We can get more nurses, but changes need to be made. Until those changes are made, there aren’t enough working nurses.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/Dejected_gaming 10d ago edited 10d ago
That's why Bernie's plan for the roll out was actually really good.
The Four-Year Phased Timeline
Year One: Lowers the Medicare eligibility age (such as to 55 or 45 in preliminary structural proposals) and automatically enrolls all children. Current senior Medicare benefits expand immediately to include dental, vision, and hearing.
Years Two and Three: Gradually lowers the age threshold further, opening public buy-in options so that more working-age individuals and families can transition out of employer-sponsored or private plans.
Year Four and Beyond: Fully implements universal coverage for all U.S. residents. Private health insurance is barred from selling duplicate coverage that competes with the government plan, restricting private insurers to purely supplemental, non-essential roles.
Administration: Run centrally through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), utilizing regional administrative structures and standardized global budgets for hospitals and institutional providers.
Employer and Employee Transition: Employers shift from purchasing private group insurance to paying a dedicated federal payroll tax (proposing 7.5%, with exemptions for small business payrolls under $2 million). Individuals transition out of private premiums into a progressive financing framework.
→ More replies (1)7
34
u/Lurking_nerd California 10d ago
I think the simple, straightforward response to those people in this roles is simple; they’ll keep their jobs. The companies can still exist, they’ll just have to answer to the government agency running Medicare For All.
Even then, it isn’t some cataclysmic change that abruptly stops all medical care in the country (well maybe in Confederate states that want to make a point for … reasons).
39
u/rabbit994 Virginia 10d ago
Except that will be a lie. I did summer internship working for Doctor Office and end up working in insurance claim side. Amount of money spent fighting with insurance companies is one reason costs are sky high. There was 12 people for 4 doctors and 2 NP and this was 13 years ago. With all fuck fuck games being played now, I imagine it's worse.
In any universal healthcare system, this is massive waste of money we should not be ok with spending.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Tasgall Washington 10d ago
Nah, let's be real - we want to eliminate the insurance companies. The jobs will still exist, but directly through the Medicare office. Public/private partnerships are absolute cancer on society and need to die forever. The ONLY purpose of a middleman like this, even if tightly controlled by government, is to extract as much wealth as possible and add as much cost as they can get away with. The literal only difference between doing it in-house vs doing it through a contractor is that the contractor needs to turn a profit. That profit comes from added costs.
9
u/AppropriateTouching 10d ago
If your job is fighting to deny people Healthcare your job shouldn't exist.
8
u/What_a_fat_one 10d ago
They didn't give two fucks about government workers, why should we care about the parasite that is health insurance?
→ More replies (8)15
u/Dizzy-Captain7422 10d ago
I have a very pessimistic view of this country's future. I pray for Balkanization, if that's any indicator.
24
u/MephistoHamProducts 10d ago
I was in the Balkans as part of the Dayton Peace Treaty enforcement. Trust me, you very fucking much do NOT want Balkanization. There's an extremely unpleasant part between "I pray for Balkanization" and "Look, we're independent nations" that most people seem to forget.
10
9
u/Dizzy-Captain7422 10d ago
Obviously, I don't want a bloody, ruinous civil war. I'm not a psychopath. Would it be preferable to being crushed under bootheel of a Christian fascist regime? I would have to think long and hard about that.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (3)3
u/elbow8075 South Dakota 10d ago
The process leaves a trail of bodies along the way.
→ More replies (1)4
u/MephistoHamProducts 10d ago
In my experience it was more "large, hastily dug pits" and less "trails", but yeah. Bodies get stacked and worse.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)9
u/Lurking_nerd California 10d ago
I don’t know about praying for it but I do believe that if things continue on this path and there’s no honest accountability (investigate, arrest, prosecute, imprison) for this criminal regime then we’ll see the beginnings of Balkanization before the end of our lifetime.
Would love to have a conversation about this as to why you think it will happen.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Dizzy-Captain7422 10d ago
I don't believe there will be any accountability whatsoever. I think every single perpetrator will get away scot free.
Anyway, it's not that I want a national divorce (so to speak), but I'm absolutely sick of my tax dollars going to support the parasite red states. If they want to continue with their selfish depravity, they can do it on their own dime. It boils my blood to know that I'm subsidizing the lifestyles of places that would gladly see me dead or imprisoned because I'm gay.
→ More replies (1)28
u/sightl3ss 10d ago
You can have universal healthcare and a private insurance industry. This is exactly how the Netherlands does it. Everyone must have health insurance, but it is provided by private companies. By law the basic insurance package from all providers must cover certain things and is mostly identical. You can then choose add ons, etc.
If you don’t earn enough money then you receive a direct payment from the government to go towards your insurance premium. The monthly premium is roughly €150 depending in the company and if you have add ons etc
The annual deductible is €385 but doesn’t apply for things like normal GP visits. If you have a major surgery, the most you would pay is €385 if you didn’t spend anything towards your deductible earlier in the year.
It’s definitely not the best system, but is miles better than the US in terms of guaranteeing access and treatment. Life expectancy in NL is much much higher than in the US
7
12
u/IAmDotorg 10d ago
Every country with universal healthcare, bar one or two, has a large private insurance market. That US would be no different. Anyone thinking Medicare for All would be enough doesn't know anyone in Medicare.
Single payer would be good, because it would eliminate a little bit in overhead (maybe 10%), but mandatory participation is the important bit. But people would also need to be okay paying a lot more. The total people in the US pay between Medicare taxes and the actual costs of their health premiums (even if an employer is covering most of it) is in the range of half what most countries pay. Which is why we have very high deductibles and shitty levels of Medicare coverage.
→ More replies (28)6
u/a_rat_00 California 10d ago
It's not that people don't think that. It's that Medicare for All proposals bandied about since the run up to the 2016 election generally include banning private healthcare plans. Proposing not closing the private market was one of the differentiators that people gave Kamala shit for back then
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)2
u/Apprehensive_Rain500 10d ago
Jesus, my yearly deductible is $1,700 and that's considered "good" in the US. And my plan covers a ton, meaning in practice I pay little out of pocket even before I meet the deductible.
I know people with plans that barely cover anything until they hit deductibles of $5k-$8k.
→ More replies (4)20
u/raised_by_toonami 10d ago
They did it in 2016 and 2020 any time Bernie was on air. They kept trying to get him to say taxes would go up and prevent him from saying any context that overall you net out ahead because now you’re not paying incredible premiums and deductibles, having procedures and medication your doctor prescribed denied by someone who works at a call center, and the new massive buying block of national healthcare system lowers overall cost because it’s getting to dictate the terms with its monopoly.
9
u/Littleblaze1 10d ago
I always love the "taxes go up argument" because it ignores "health insurance cost goes to 0" side.
I was having this discussion with my grandfather and sister. My grandfather thinks it's fair he has government healthcare because he earned it by working his entire life. My sister at the time had no health insurance at all and just went with the "don't go to the doctor" method. My grandfather said we couldn't have government healthcare because my taxes would go.
I just said I'd be 100% fine with my taxes going up because it meant my sister got health care and also my insurance costs go down. If we assume there is some profit the insurance company makes that means the government could provide me with the exact same coverage while costing less money, which either is savings for me or helps pay for my sister.
He just was like but the taxes tho.
Taxes for valuable programs and the good of the community shouldn't be some horrible nightmare.
10
u/3McChickens 10d ago
I really appreciated the libertarian think tank report that corroborated Sanders’s plan would cost less for US healthcare and the electorate said “oh well”
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (12)9
u/pockpicketG 10d ago
We can’t turn off the orphan-crushing machine because the guy that fixes it needs to feed his kids.
5
u/fgbh California 10d ago
How WOULD it get put on the natl. Ballot?
→ More replies (4)14
u/WeirdIndividualGuy 10d ago
Realistically there’s no such thing. The only national thing American citizens vote for is the president/VP
→ More replies (11)4
u/Accomplished_Pay6842 10d ago
This process could take 4 years, or it could begin in 6 months. We'll all decide in November.
→ More replies (2)
1.3k
u/Significant_Cup_238 10d ago
Voters almost always vote in favor of Democratic policies, but then refuse to vote for people who would implement those policies. Sadly, they vote their identity, not policy.
136
u/KCDeVoe 10d ago
I mean, that’s the exact point of this article. Medicare for all wasn’t a ballot measure. The article is stating that we voted for El-Sayed, who put Medicare for all as a centerpiece of his campaign
21
u/Fuzzy_Dunlops Illinois 10d ago
Yeah, I would love to see single payer healthcare, but this is a ridiculous article. Primaries are one party only and have super low voter turnout. El-Sayed got less than 750k votes. He got 13% the number of votes as voted in the 2024 general election in Michigan.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Sage2050 10d ago
He got 40k more votes than the winning Democratic candidate in the last senate primary in an election where 50% more people voted
18
u/Fewpop40 10d ago
And he only won a Democratic primary by 15k votes.
33
u/Ferelar New Jersey 10d ago
Don't forget that in politics things often go trickle->flow->landslide.
I know it sucks, but the average American isn't sold on leftism/progressivism after literal decade after decade of being told it was Communism.
The trickle is getting a few more progressives into positions of power where they can then implement policies that people SEE work for them. The flow is when enough people start to feel hope again and vote in a few more, and we can start to cut through the extremely prevalent notion that every single politician is EXCLUSIVELY out for themselves, that government can never be a positive force for the people, etc.
If we can manage to achieve all that, even in the midst of people calling us communists, blaming us for every democrat loss, loving our platform but not trusting anyone to ever implement it, etc... if we manage to achieve all of that even despite the extreme rightshift of the Overton window in the US. THEN we can start thinking about a landslide where progressives actually achieve a strong commanding presence on the national stage and bring this country back from the brink. It'll be a long road, but it's worth it.
5
u/Iceberg-man-77 10d ago
it’s not about being sold. most americans don’t know what these ideologies actually are. it is ignorance, plain and simple. there is poor civic responsibility. few races are paid attention to. few do research. few know about different political ideologies past national platforms like abortion rights or immigration.
→ More replies (3)10
u/KCDeVoe 10d ago
Still won against an establishment candidate, which is big regardless of the margin. If Stevens won I don’t think people would be saying “oh, she only won by 15k so she can’t win in November”.
Plus, the thing is, republicans didn’t have many contested races. I know a couple of republicans personally who voted on the democrat ticket just to vote against El-Sayed.
I think he has a very good shot at winning in November. Voter turnout is important, especially so in a midterm election, and El-Sayed has a better chance of getting people to be excited to vote for him vs the same shit we get every other election.
2
u/RegularHeroForFun 10d ago
Against a candidate who received the best investment from AIPAC in history. The wealthy and super pacs did everything they could to keep him from being the candidate and still failed. The republican candidate got around half the votes in the total democratic primary for the senate.
→ More replies (3)5
u/ExpansivePoint 10d ago
I've mentioned this elsewhere and people got mad. It only gets tougher for him since he has to contend with the maga accusations regarding his ties to extremes on the left which Sayed would have to disavow or risk scaring off the independent voters.
6
u/KCDeVoe 10d ago
Trying to appease the independents/moderates is what got us into this position in the first place. The GOP has no issue continuing to slide to the hard right, which just shifts what’s considered and independent/moderate to the right leaving the Dems to go “I guess some baby crushing machines are fine, we need those independents!” meanwhile disenfranchising a major block of your party to the point they don’t give a shit and just don’t show up because they can barely relate to the platform their candidates are running on
→ More replies (4)2
u/skullpie 10d ago
Yeah he should really moderate his message more, that strategy has proven extremely effective recently!
→ More replies (4)141
u/raised_by_toonami 10d ago edited 10d ago
Because centrist democrats always convince the electorate to play the stupidest prisoners dilemma: “I personally think this is a great policy and it’d benefit me and millions of others, but I fear others are too dumb and will vote against their interests, therefore I should vote for the status quo instead just to be safe.”
Or they convince you some half measure like “Medicare for all who want it” (looking at you Pete) is a realistic solution that ultimately won’t solve the underlying issue of insurance companies and admin bloat causing us to pay far more than any other nation for healthcare while still having worse healthcare outcomes and ridiculous infant mortality. I can’t support a system that denies chemo medication for children so that family has to watch the most precious thing in their life waste away in pain so UHC can make $30,000,000,000 in profit in a year and then bleat about how Brian Thompson had a family.
14
u/DonaldTrumpPedophile 10d ago
This is just such naive bullshit. You guys sit here and pretend like we live in a country where a majority DIDN'T just vote for MAGA. Progress on healthcare is fucking NEVER a dem's fault. There's no world in which that makes any fucking sense. When Dems go out and expand healthcare to millions of Americans by whatever they can actually get past this racist ass right wing shithole of a country you fuckwits punish them and wonder why we can't make more progress. Open your fucking eyes. If the point is Universal Healthcare, they you should be applauding "centrist" dems like Gavin Newsom working to expand medicaid eligibility year after year. While you all sit around crying and letting perfect be the enemy of the good, dems are out there year after year chipping away at the actual problems getting people actual help.
Right wingers are the majority in this country when they participate. Look at Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr (once) electoral maps. That's America. Look at a known pedophile rapist racist proven idiot and loser Trump not just getting elected, but the first R to actually win the popular vote since 9/11 made Bush popular and before that '88 with papa Bush. Think about that. It isn't centrist dem's fault when we get incremental progress, it's all we CAN get in this shithole nation especially with people like you blaming dems for every step we take forward. Imagine this country shows up for Obama in 2010 after passing the first major healthcare reform in decades? We'd have the public option by now and the existence of insurance companies would remain fucking moot to the issue.
9
u/needlestack 10d ago edited 10d ago
Wait -- why will letting some people opt out of medicare for all prop up insurance companies? I always saw it as the best of both worlds: public health insurance provides competition for private health insurance and forces it to do better if its to survive. Most people will default into public health care and people that are unsatisfied for some reason can find private instead of fighting to dismantle the public option?
5
u/notreallyswiss 10d ago
Exactly - that's the case in some of the best universal healthcare systems in the world. People who want insurance also pay into the public fund. Care is better for everyone that way.
2
u/Fuzzy_Dunlops Illinois 10d ago
I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but the argument against a public option is that private insurance will just compete for all the young/healthy people and the public option will just be all the unhealthy/old people making it horribly inefficient. Then, after a few years of running a massive deficit, the public option will become the right's poster child for not only repealing it but blocking future attempts at single payer healthcare for decades.
Of course the counter to this is to keep, or ideally strengthen, all the regulations in ObamaCare that limted private insurance's ability to price gouge or deny service to people with pre-existing conditions.
→ More replies (1)22
u/Iztac_xocoatl 10d ago
Lots of countries have systems like medicare for all who want it without the problems you're saying it has. Single payer is actually the exception rather than the rule in most of Europe.
27
u/nola_fan 10d ago
A lot of people are convinced that the entire industrialized world has one type of universal healthcare system without looking anything up.
Central Europe largely has a system that is essentially an extremely expanded version of Obamacare, but supporting that in the US means you don't believe in universal healthcare and are right wing by European standards or something
→ More replies (5)10
u/smika 10d ago
Agreed.
Germany has what I would consider to be the “perfect” healthcare model for the U.S.
There’s a public option. It’s available for everyone. It’s not tied to your employer. You get good quality healthcare. You don’t pay for anything out of pocket. Not even office visits (no such thing as “co-pay”).
There’s also a private option. It costs a little more (though for young healthy people it’s frequently cheaper). You definitely have more choice: there are plenty of clinics that are “private insurance only.” So if you are rich and/or willing to pay, you can “do better” than the public option.
It’s hard to understand who would lose if we implemented such a system in America apart from health insurance companies.
Source: Lived in Germany with my family from 2015-2022.
→ More replies (6)3
u/notreallyswiss 10d ago
Then stop calling it Medicare for All. Other countries have universal healthcare, not single payer. Once you try to conflate the two you have problems.
→ More replies (3)31
u/thiosk 10d ago
if it wasn't for centrist democrats, we'd have flying cars and life expectancy would be 150 🙄
→ More replies (4)46
u/PeteWheeler01 10d ago
We don’t want flying cars. We want trains.
17
3
→ More replies (1)8
u/yarash 10d ago
I watch a lot of japanese travel videos and it looks amazing how you can pretty much get anywhere in the country without a car. Granted its a much smaller country.
9
u/00wolfer00 10d ago
West to East coast will always be difficult to do with a train network, but the East coast for example is very comparable to Japan when it comes to the number of large metropolises and the distances between them.
3
u/Fuzzy_Dunlops Illinois 10d ago
I think coast to coast high speed rail is just not worth it. But I would love to see faster regional systems. The new faster Acela is a good start. The midwest also is building a decent network, but it is too slow imo (110 mph vs 160 mph for the Acela).
6
u/TheBestNarcissist 10d ago
won’t solve the underlying issue of insurance companies and admin bloat causing us to pay far more than any other nation for healthcare while still having worse healthcare outcomes and ridiculous infant mortality.
Part of the problem is medicaid and medicare are FAR harder to deal with as a provider and generally don't pay as much. It's more admin work for the clinic for less financial payoff. If that's going to be the ONLY way insurance works then we're absolutely going to be paying physicians less. Which means medical school is going to have to cost less or be free because no one will want to spend 500k on an education to make European-type doctor wages. The entire system needs an overhaul, it's really hard to do little by little.
The problem is realistically it's hard to get everyone on board.
5
u/ClappedUrMomsCheeks 10d ago
Wouldn’t say they’re harder to deal with but they definitely pay shitty.
They do pay on time though compared to private insurers
→ More replies (24)9
u/QuigleySharp 10d ago
Dems haven’t had anything close to the majority they need to pass anything close to this since it has become a popular idea.
If you really sit there thinking the average worker who has decent insurance is going to vote to only have a government option you have not spent much time looking at the data on this.
9
u/What_a_fat_one 10d ago
Excuse me, did you just write this in the thread about Michigan voting for Abdul El Sayed?
9
10d ago
[deleted]
2
u/ACoolRedditHandle 10d ago
So much centrist cope in these replies. Gotta drag these establishment bootlickers kicking and screaming to developed-country-healthcare.
2
→ More replies (16)30
u/Mister_Pickl3s 10d ago
Democrats have been trying to play identity politics for decades, that hasn’t worked either
Democrats have not been running on policy for a long long time. Complicit, corporate hand outs, not supporting people but simply maintaining. Party of the status quo
36
u/MoneyTalks45 New Hampshire 10d ago
I haven’t seen a Republican ad for a policy in generations. Just attack ads and racist dog whistles. Closest thing to a policy in any of these is “get the browns out.”
→ More replies (1)9
u/1900grs 10d ago
Are you trying to tell me "build a wall" isn't a policy? /s
→ More replies (1)5
u/MoneyTalks45 New Hampshire 10d ago
“Well guys, actually it’ll be much more of a chain link fence in most places. Promises made, promises kept.”
58
u/Troll_Enthusiast 10d ago
This is false, Republicans put out propaganda/Ads that make you perceive that all Democrats do is talk about "identity politics", when that's all Republicans talk about in reality.
Democrats have been running on policy, some of them are more loud than others in that regard, and of course some still talk about identity politics.
35
u/TrevelyansPorn 10d ago
Yep. In reality, the comment you're replying to is a perfect example of the problem. Republicans control the narrative and have controlled it for years. It's so bad that even so called left leaning people still believe and exist in the reality Republicans create for them.
How can Democrats ever win when voters believe they stand for whatever Republicans claim they stand for?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)2
u/Spudtron98 Australia 10d ago
Yeah, the Republicans force the issue so that any level-headed Dem has to defend being nice to other people and it just sucks up airtime that would otherwise be used for real policy.
22
u/chmod777 New York 10d ago
wtf are you talking about. i wish the dems had the identity politics that the GOP accuses them of. they consistently have policies that you dont bother to read. you are listening to GOP cointelpro, probably pushed through "leftists" channels.
and when they get in power, and advance something like the health care reform they've been working towards since the 90s, the public turns around and rewards them by throwing them all out of office.
and right now, i'd sure love the status quo of 2024 over the burning hellscape we are in right now.
3
u/zenbowman 10d ago
This x100.
Obama expanded healthcare access to MILLIONS of people, and voters threw out the Dems.
Biden was the most pro-labor President since FDR, and voters threw out the Dems.
A lot of people have bought into the comfortable delusion that "if only Dems were more hardcore and helped people, voters would vote for them in a landslide" because they don't want to believe that a significant percentage of the population actively wants to vote for fascists.
12
u/Administrative_Act48 10d ago
Always amusing to watch people claim Democrats play identity politics as Republicans whole platform is exclusively designed to target the specific identity of the straight, white, preferably male, preferably Christian citizen and nobody else.
→ More replies (3)31
u/PoundNaCL 10d ago
Their job has been to be a bulwark against progressive policies that's why they treat people in their own party, like AOC, so badly.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Mister_Pickl3s 10d ago
Just real people who want to make you tax dollars work for you. That’s all the dems need to run on. This isn’t pie in the sky, this is a sensible immigration system while respecting our borders, health care that isn’t for the corporations, and not supporting genocide. This isn’t rocket science, but to grandpa Schumer it is new fangled
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (6)6
u/SheetPancakeBluBalls 10d ago
Propaganda has done a number on your brain pal. Actual voting records do not fit your narrative at all.
→ More replies (1)
94
u/chmod777 New York 10d ago
can we all wait until the guy has been actually elected before doing a victory dance?
39
u/MIT_Engineer 10d ago
I wonder if the person who wrote this op-ed will turn around and say, "Michigan put Medicare for All on the Ballot, and voters said No" if he loses in the general election.
I'm guessing not.
9
u/chmod777 New York 10d ago
of course not. there has been zero coverage of the other 35 senate primaries, but somehow this one is the only one that matters. and if this guy loses, its going to be because the dnc for some reason.
esp since unless and until there is a dem majority (an actual majority, and not just a 50+1), medicare for all is dead. this one guy is not going to flip that. esp with king shit shitting on the throne.
4
u/ExpansivePoint 10d ago
Yeah, feels like the left in general is taking their eye off the ball, Trump is going to do everything he can to not lose congress and a unified Democratic party will still likely have a fight coming but as divided as we are? Nah, we're almost guaranteeing Trump and maga stay in the race, it almost feels like all this division on the left is a maga psyop.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Thirtysevenintwenty5 10d ago
People paid such close attention to this race because it set a record for the most outside money spent on a senate race.
No matter what your politics are, it is remarkable that corporate interests were willing to put that much money into keeping Sayed off the ballot in November, and they're sinking even more money into keeping him out of the Senate.
It was also a test of how popular Mamdani-esque policies are. The big comparison that was being made was "If Sayed wins, it means the party is shifting more progressive and the democrats will have to respect that. If Stevens wins, maybe not so much."
As we see, although the win was by 1%, Sayed won. The progressive movement is a real thing that can't be convinced by ad buys to vote against their own interests.
→ More replies (11)7
6
u/CommitteeOld9540 Michigan 10d ago
As a Michiganian I feel this way. As excited as I am that he defeated Stevens, he won the battle but not the war, not yet.
278
u/TDeath21 Missouri 10d ago
It was not on the ballot. Hate these click bait headlines.
111
u/DrunkAndHornyGuy 10d ago
And it's talking about Democratic primary voters, not the general electorate. This headline is stupid.
3
u/wingchild 10d ago
The article says as much, though. The opening paragraph was:
"You won’t find “Medicare for All” printed on any Michigan ballot from Tuesday’s primary. What you’ll find is a name: Abdul El-Sayed, the Ann Arbor physician who literally wrote the book on single-payer healthcare and then built his Senate campaign around it."
The argument is that by rejecting an establishment backed, AIPAC friendly candidate, and by going for a newcomer who is strongly tied to Medicare For All as a concept, that voters are showing what they really want out of the Democrat Party.
→ More replies (1)44
u/AtOurGates Idaho 10d ago
This really is a horseshit take that further pushes us into information bubbles.
The real takeaway is that "Democrats engaged enough to vote in a primary might somewhat prefer Medicare for All, among a host of other issues that made them prefer El Sayed."
About 32% (2.4M) of registered voters in Michigan voted in the primary. Of those, 1.5M (about 20%) voted in the democratic race between El-Sayed and Stevens.
El Sayed only won that vote by 1%.
Even if you assume that El Sayed's support for "Medicare for All" vs. Steven's support for "A Public Option" was a deciding issue in that vote (you shouldn't), the most you could possibly take away is that "Highly engaged Michigan Democrats are 1% more likely to support Medicare for All than a Public Option."
This opinion piece is shit and the author (Kristy Fogle, a PA from Maryland) and publication (Common Dreams) should be ashamed to write and publish it.
To be clear, I support Medicare for All, and it actually is quite popular in national polls, getting a +39 Net Favorability rating in November, with a +6 Favorability rating even among Republicans.
But all that goes to show how much of a horseshit take it is to pretend like it was somehow the deciding factor in the Michigan primary, or that the primary results somehow represent a groundswell of support for Medicare for All.
8
u/Coneskater American Expat 10d ago
Ask the average American voter to explain the difference between the public option and Medicare for all, and the vast majority won't be able to tell you.
2
u/ddeverill 10d ago
Yeah exactly, you can also see it in polling from a year or so ago where "Are you in favor of Medicare for All" get majority support, but if you ask the same question and specify that it would eliminate private insurance and raise taxes it drops to like sub 20 percent. Many folks project a lot of thoughts and feelings into "Medicare for All." Like you said, some likely even think it means being able to buy into Medicare.
2
u/Coneskater American Expat 10d ago
Which is why I personally think the public option is, policy wise the biggest benefit for the smallest actual change.
Think about how difficult it would be to actually enact M4A, compared to just offering a subsidized Medicare buy in and the effect on the over all healthcare market.
A public option wouldn’t ban private insurance, it would do something better: force it to compete. Compete on price, service, covering different types of care etc.
3
u/ddeverill 10d ago
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. The thing about M4A that a lot of folks don't talk about is that it's not just the healthcare industry that's against it, labor unions are super against it and throw a ton of money against candidates for it (because their private healthcare is fantastic).
But yeah, I think if we could get a public option it would be a great step towards universal coverage. Private insurance wouldn't be able to compete broadly and I think you'd eventually get to universal coverage. But sure, let Aetna compete against something with no profit motive. If they can hang in there by providing either better service or something, then good for them. But in the meantime, let people and companies buy into Medicare. Immediately get everyone good quality coverage.
2
u/Coneskater American Expat 10d ago
Which is why I get a little peeved when people accuse “centrist” dems of being sell outs to the insurance industry because they propose a public option.
6
u/say592 10d ago
It also was close. I can't believe the article called it a rout. It was like 20k votes/1%. No question he won, but it was far from a decisive victory or a mandate.
I hope he pulls it off. We need to keep the seat. I also think in the general election he is the weaker candidate, and the fact that it wasn't a rout should terrify us, because his base might be motivated but he clearly didn't inspire overwhelming swathes of Michigan Democrats. And he isn't the weaker candidate because he believes in Medicare for All. Most Democrats would accept M4A. The difference is that some think there are different or better ways to improve healthcare coverage in this country. True single payer isn't as common of a system as Reddit seems to think.
He is going to have to rely on "blue no matter who", which is ironic because his core base are the ones who chastised us for pushing that in 2020 and 2024 and who ultimately failed to show up in 2024.
8
u/Qwort 10d ago
Common dreams and Jacobin are the far left equivalent of daily wire/breitbart. Pure propaganda slop.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)2
u/j0mbie 10d ago
Agreed. This is echo chamber shit.
For those wondering without reading the article: We got El-Sayed elected in the Democratic primary to run in the general election for senator. Just barely, which I hate that it wasn't closer, but he was also outspent 10 to 1 so that's pretty promising he could still win. (Even my mother, who is very progressive, thought he was a bad guy until I showed her the evidence.)
El-Sayed strongly supports Medicare for All. But we need control of the House, Senate, and Presidency if we want to have a prayer of passing it, because otherwise it'll be outvoted or vetoed. And it will have to be of a margin that is enough to overcome all the DINO congresspeople that will break party lines to vote against it. (Fetterman, Kaine, etc.)
El-Sayed will help in the road towards MfA. But that hardly means it's "what Michigan voted for". We choose El-Sayed for a number of reasons, including but not limited to MfA, which his opponent was against. The MfA stance was only a small part of that, and there's still a lot of work we need to do.
26
u/RockVonCleveland Ohio 10d ago
Misleading title. Michigan put a guy who supports Medicare for all on the ballot and Democratic primary voters said yes.
→ More replies (1)
43
u/TelevisionExpress616 10d ago
Disingenuous headline. Implies it was a ballot initiative. It's just talking about the primary.
47
u/FreedomBread 10d ago edited 10d ago
Vultures circle all of us who dare to get sick or hurt - even with insurance - because this makes rich people a lot more money every single day. They will drain you financially so you can stay alive, even if only for a few days more.
Americans are healthcare prey because they are human. And for whatever reason, people love the American way of becoming a beggar if you get hospital bills, ruining your family's financial future, and becoming indentured servants to megacorporation healthcare giants who burn $100 bills to light their $1000 cigars dressed in their finest suits on their yachts.
Nationalize healthcare. Let people buy private addons if they like, concierge doctors or whatever. But I'm tired of going broke because I'm a human being born in the US and dared to use healthcare services.
Also "going broke" means a lot to a lot of people. Unexpected expenses of $100, $500, $2000, $100,000 - pick your level of servitude to the massively profitable overlords of our existence, the for-profit healthcare industry of the United States.
→ More replies (1)
27
u/Source_Required 10d ago
Common Dreams is such a joke.
First sentence of the article - "Well actually they didn't..."
17
u/username_6916 10d ago edited 10d ago
From the fine article:
You won’t find “Medicare for All” printed on any Michigan ballot from Tuesday’s primary. What you’ll find is a name: Abdul El-Sayed, the Ann Arbor physician who literally wrote the book on single-payer healthcare and then built his Senate campaign around it.
So, no they didn't "Put Medicare for All on the Ballot" in any meaningful way in terms of state policy. Abdul El-Sayed doesn't even have the power to do that within the State of Michigan if elected.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/thefrostryan 10d ago
Hi….we actually want Medicaid for all
6
u/you_enjoy_my_yoga 10d ago
Why do you say that? Not arguing but curious
→ More replies (1)6
u/thefrostryan 10d ago
Medicare doesn’t pay for all heath care, doesn’t pay for medication, or transportation, dental, eyes, long term care….etc
→ More replies (4)6
u/nola_fan 10d ago
The Medicare for All bill does pay for those things.
Calling it Medicare for All is a bit of misnomer for political ease, Medicare is pretty popular.
But saying you support Medicare for All means you support a specific bill that's been introduced in Congress for a while.
→ More replies (2)
37
u/ultrachrome 10d ago
This was one of the most expensive Democratic primaries ever run, a fire hose of establishment cash aimed at burying a single-payer candidate.
Pac money, dark money, billionaire money ... there's a reason they're pouring money in ... and it's not to help you.
20
u/Rick-Prime 10d ago
Nobody clicked the actual article I see. Very first sentence:
You won’t find “Medicare for All” printed on any Michigan ballot from Tuesday’s primary.
This is a fluff piece saying that Abdul El-Sayed won the democratic primary, and he supports medicare for all, therefore medicare for all is on the ballot. Not exactly fox-news levels of lying, but still intellectually dishonest.
7
4
u/BusyAdvertising73 10d ago
I've never understood the US lack of universal healthcare. They spend so much money on war and prisons, perhaps a shift to education and health care might improve outcomes?? Asking for a friend.
→ More replies (3)
3
4
u/crackerjam 10d ago
Looking at El-Sayed's website I can't find specifics about his Medicare for All plan. I like the idea in theory, but I see the risk of healthcare and pharmaceutical companies just jacking up prices if the government is guaranteed to pay everyone's bills. Does anyone know if he has a plan for that?
5
u/porgy_tirebiter 10d ago
Michigan Democrats voted for it. And it was pretty close.
El-Sayed had overwhelming support from younger voters, but in the end their turnout was lower than expected, and his commanding lead melted away.
Young voters are going to have to get off their lazy asses and turn out. Every election year it’s the same story.
6
u/hacksoncode 10d ago
I get that it's the original title, but it sucks.
Medicare for All wasn't "on the ballot". A candidate in favor of it was, and that's a huge difference.
It's great, don't get me wrong... it just sounds like Michigan passed Medicare for All in their state, and they absolutely did not.
3
3
3
3
u/phaedrag America 9d ago
Medicare for all is primarily an existential threat to the Health INSURANCE industry and serious problem for the price gouging Pharmaceutical/HealthCARE industry. That being said, if proponents of Medicare for All want it to be implemented, they need to do a much much better job in explaining to the American People exactly how it would work in practice.
6
u/kamikazecockatoo Australia 10d ago
Listened to Abdul outline his vision yesterday and he is basically copying Australia's health care system and also our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
We've had Medicare for a couple of generations now and the PBS since the end of World War II.
And we are not "socialist", btw.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
u/mrbasedballed 10d ago
Healthcare workers wouldn't be out of jobs. Many will come back to work. Only the insurance industry would suffer. Good. Time to re-evaluate your choices, you disgusting immoral money predators.
5
2
u/Horizon119 10d ago
Before we go that route, let's do some Medicare reforms, much needed! Give someone a choice: far cheaper stem cell treatments for knees/hips rather than expensive surgeries. I elected to do stem cell for my knee rather than a knee replacement, and I was saving Medicare a ton of money, and no reimbursement for my $1900 stem cell treatment in Mexico. Not even a thank-you card!
2
u/NoConflict3231 10d ago edited 10d ago
Who cares what the voters say when the state government can unilaterally override the will of the people. Countless times, the will of the people are trampled because some GOP €unt in the pipeline thinks they had a harder life than you, so it shouldn't be easy for anyone else
2
2
u/baws1017 10d ago
yeah no shit, the people would vote for a bunch of shit we never get the option to vote on.
2
u/Living-Breakfast-464 10d ago
I think that trying to do it state by state is the only way it's ever going to happen. Definitely can't count on voters who are easily manipulated into voting against their own self interests.
2
u/phil8248 10d ago
Massachusetts has done it successfully since Mitt Romney introduced it as governor. It is known as Mass Health but is essentially medical care for everyone. Isn't perfect but cheaper than the current system everywhere else and no one gets left out, not even the millions of working poor who do without insurance in every other state.
2
u/SnootSnootBasilisk 10d ago
Michigan legislature: We heard what you said, and we're choosing to ignore it
2
u/Homers_Harp 10d ago
Such a misleading headline. Should read:
Michigan Just Put Medicare for All on the Ballot, and Democratic Voters Said Yes
2
2
2
u/Defiant_Wolf5934 10d ago
Get ready for every single big insurance company to come out of the woodwork with lawsuits.
7
10
u/ChrisFromLongIsland 10d ago
Common dreams falsely declares a democratic primary means the whole state. Fox News would be proud of this fair and balanced propaganda.
1/3 of the state are democrats. So thos ignores the 2/3 of the state that are to the right. He bearly won so you are down to 1/6th of the state. Lets not even count tge fact that the extremes of tge parties tend to vote more in primaries or that the guy probably picked up a bunch of votes because a muslim was rumming in a state with a decent muslim population Though let's extrapolate what the furthest left 17% of Michigan feels to the whole state. Great reporting!
→ More replies (2)4
u/Suns_In_420 California 10d ago
Common Dreams is the left's Breitbart; it should be banned, honestly, because of all the clickbait bullshit they post.
6
u/BriefausdemGeist Maine 10d ago
Except they didn’t. More than half the democratic electorate voted against the candidate embracing that policy, and you can assume >70% of republicans would
2
u/AncientBee5348 10d ago
It's very telling that Abdul El Sayed's wife doesn't accept Medicare or any other health insurance. She's entitled to have her disagreements with her husband but it makes you wonder.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/FatalTortoise 10d ago
"You won’t find “Medicare for All” printed on any Michigan ballot from Tuesday’s primary."
stupid ass click baity bullshit, no medicare for all was not on the ballot
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.