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.

  • caboose2006@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

  • squirrelwithnut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Sounds like 62% of Americans should have voted for the candidate that might have actually made that possible.

    • iMastari@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      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.

      • Skeezix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        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.

      • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Its important to make incremental progress. Kamala was a standard dem like Joe. Still they are open to hearing good ideas; compared to Trump.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Trump is open to hearing good ideas too. Problem is, “good” is highly subjective.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Until the USA can cap healthcare costs, shit ain’t gonna happen. Every single legal resident in the USA should have the same healthcare as the politicians.

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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?

        • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          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.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Wish granted. $100k deductible for all. GiGa subsidies for insurance corporations.

    “We did it Patrick, we did Healthcare reform!” - democrats probably

  • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    I don’t think this has ever been contended. I believe the issue dividing camps is in the how

      • vividspecter@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        That’s a slightly different question (opinion on the ACA vs whether the government should ensure that everyone has healthcare).

        Although the latter is also true, according to the OP article:

        The poll found that a majority of Republicans still believe ensuring health coverage is not the government’s job, but the majority has shrunk since 2020.

        That year, only 22% of Republican voters believed the government should ensure everyone in the country has healthcare, but that number has now grown to 32%.

    • Greee1911@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      38% are the, I never have to go to the doctor. I never get sick. Until one day, they realize what an absolute nightmare the healthcare system is. 38% are probably the percentage that have had use for anything other than doctors visits.

  • crystalmerchant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 day ago

    Not “coverage”, “affordable coverage”. I don’t want coverage through whatever capitalist exploit insurance company. I want affordable healthcare without lifesucking middlemen

    • Ellen_musk_ox@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The coverage the fire department provides is affordable. And my Library. And my streets. And the storm water system. And K-12.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Yeah but only sick people use healthcare so fuck them. /s

        Capitalist healthcare is class eugenics. CMV.

    • MisterD@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      That’s a single payer health system. Government pays the health providers You pay the government through taxes.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        “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)

        • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          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.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            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.

      • normalexit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        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.

    • RandomVideos@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      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

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        23% voted for Trump, and 55% also indirectly did by not voting or going third-party.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 day ago

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

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

    • FuzzyDog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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?

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Walz doesn’t have a seat anymore. And what do the Democrats have to lose by actually moving left?

        • FuzzyDog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          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.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            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.

        • FuzzyDog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        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.

    • witten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

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

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

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

      • bitwolf@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        “Muh tax dollars cant be wasted on someone else’s health”

        Proceeds to vote for their tax dollars to be wasted on bailing out another business