Do you support or oppose the idea of Medicare for All in America?

Support (51%) – "Although I support Medicare for all, I do see the concerns about government involvement. Ideally I’d see basic care provided for all- wellness visits, coverage for long term illness, and elderly care. There would still have to be some out of pocket expenses but if we started focusing more on securing wellness some of the illnesses would decrease. Think holistically rather than curing things with a pill."

• "People who put off going to the doctor because they can't afford it ends up costing society far more in the long run than a Medicare for all program would. It would also make it far easier for small businesses and entrepreneurial startups to thrive if they can attract quality workers without having to be the source of their medical insurance."

"We are the only developed nation in the world without Universal Healthcare. It's past time to unwind healthcare from employment. We would pay far less in taxes than we currently pay to for-profit insurance companies that are getting rich on the backs of their insured, and providing an often frustrating and confusing lack of benefits. It can take hours, days, weeks, months, even years to chase down payments for "denied" claims. It can become a full-time job just to wait on hold for a representative. Medical bankruptcy is real."

• "United Health Care has a market cap of approx $362 billion and last year alone made a profit of 14,4 billion. That is one insurance company. Multiply by many very profitable companies and you have wealthy white men making billions off the backs of sick people with no options. It is a sick system engineered to feed greed with vulnerable humans who are sick or hurt."

"If we have money for a ballroom, the waste on the reflecting pool, and all the other NO-BID Contracts, then surely we can make sure everyone has health care. In no world can you tell me that our lives are not worth more than those things. If you want to start funding it, let's cut our federal politicians' salaries by half (Senate, Congress, House, and Executive branch). That's still more than the average American makes. And we should be taxing the wealthy corporations to contribute without any tax loopholes. Individuals can contribute 1% of their yearly salary, with a bump for people who make more than 100 million, and another raise at a billion. I'm so tired of the notion that the only way this country can be great is if most of us suffer. Is this Omelas?"

Oppose (32%) – "Because Medicare for All would likely require additional public revenue, eligibility should be carefully structured around household income and the number of dependents supported by that income, with coverage or cost-sharing provisions calibrated accordingly. Any such framework should be grounded in transparent actuarial and economic analysis to ensure that it promotes access while maintaining the program’s long-term fiscal sustainability."

• "Health care would have to be rationed. There is no way there could be health care for all. Look to canada and great britian. • ~79,000 deaths annually while waiting: Freedom of Information (FOI) data analyzed from 127 acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts revealed that 79,130 patients were removed from waiting lists because they passed away before reaching the front of the queue. • Delayed Past Targets: Out of those deaths, 28,908 patients died after waiting longer than the statutory 18-week standard for treatment, and over 7,700 had been waiting for more than a year"

"Advocates will point to the Scandinavian countries as the proof point that socialized, government-run health care systems work well for everyone. And they may work in those microcosms where citizens are long accustomed to confiscatory tax systems and where, arguably, the average health (as measured by risk factors not outcomes) of their citizens is markedly better than in the US, as reported by the WHO.

However, these countries are already spending similar amounts as the US on a GDP-normalized basis. So the real question to ask is how we achieve better outcomes than we currently get with our healthcare system, not who is paying for what. 

The data points to the real issues and it isn't the related to the current debate over private, hybrid or government funded insurance schemes. The data shows us the that the drivers of our problems are our generally high prevalence over risk factors compared to other nations (obesity, high cholesterol, high blood sugar, hours of physical activity, etc.) and our litigious society. The first set of issues is not solved by which entities control our insurance system or how much that costs. Those are behavioral and societal issues that must be addressed to radically improve the underlying health of the population. The second is handled through tort reform and there are ample cases to point to where this has been done with beneficial outcomes. "Loser pays" is one of the simplest to implement and efficiently mitigates the problem of frivolous suits. 

Let's focus on the real issues... "

Unsure/other (17%) – "I agree that healthcare is a major concern for Americans, but I have not seen anything that the government has improved by taking over, so I am wary of that. I also think that these initiatives tend to disproportionately affect the middle class, so I suspect that we would not make out well if it was implemented."

• "I agree we need healthcare reform that improves affordability, price predictability and transparency but am not sure whether Medicare for all solves this problem. I believe that massive profits for private insurance companies and their ability to deny medically necessary treatment is one of the biggest issues we face. Addressing medical care cost through private insurance reform that removes or limits their ability to reject medically necessary claims and realigns insurance company incentives to helping people vs. returning shareholder value/profits is likely more palatable to most voters than moving to a single provider."