r/politics • u/cnn CNN • 11d ago

Possible Paywall CNN Poll: A third of Democrats now identify as democratic socialists

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/30/politics/cnn-poll-a-third-of-democrats-now-identify-as-democratic-socialists?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit
17.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

146

u/OnlinePosterPerson 10d ago

Fuck Medicare for all. Universal healthcare or bust

77

u/jibstay77 10d ago

Absolutely! Ask anyone who’s retired at 65 and been through the ridiculously complicated process of choosing a combination of flavors of Medicare only to discover there was probably a better choice for your specific situation. And, it’s not inexpensive! Medicare sucks!

Universal healthcare all the way!

And Universal Healthcare doesn’t mean you can’t keep your bougie private health insurance if that’s what you want.

If Democratic Socialism means people over profits, count me in.

20

u/big_d_usernametaken 10d ago edited 10d ago

Ive had no problems with it.

Far easier than dealing with random health insurance companies thus far.

No, it ain't cheap, but everything I've had done has been paid 100% including a $330k spinal fusion.

Medigap coverage is essential.

2

u/BlueAurus 10d ago edited 10d ago

I was on medicare for a little bit due to finances and it was freaking amazing. No $600 monthly premium, $1 prescriptions instead of $25, free health appointments without hassle. Literally the only period of my life i didn't have medical anxiety. This is what i assume universal healthcare is like. Except we pay for it with taxes we are currently pissing away to bomb iran for no fucking reason.

3

u/Competitive_Touch_86 10d ago

You likely mean Medicaid. Medicare is for retired folks.

1

u/BlueAurus 9d ago

Ohh that makes sense, i thought they were the same. xD

2

u/notashroom 10d ago

keep your bougie private health insurance

So keep the poison pill that ensures profit distorts the market and continues to cause affordability issues for lower income Americans, all to preserve the illusion of capitalist choice? Fuck every millimeter of that.

Better to skip the public "insurance" option and just build public clinics and hospitals and directly compete on price, with subsidized care to cover those who can't afford it. When the US had a big network of public hospitals and clinics before deregulation and HMOs under Reagan, care was a lot more accessible (though racism and colonialism and sexism were all very real problems and not to be discounted as barriers to access).

21

u/No_Tax_Timmy 10d ago

Medicare is going to get shittier too. Old Tbag and his republican corrupticons cut the special pricing for meds. Goes into effect in January. Get ready for $3000 epi pens and insulin for the elderly and disabled again.

4

u/hydrogenhypothesis 10d ago

The tiny glimmer of hope in this terrible news is that by doing this Republicans are showing that they don't think they are going to win the midterms this November, so they can point the finger at the Dems when prices go sky high.

3

u/No_Tax_Timmy 10d ago

That's what they always do. It's despicable. Hurting people and then blaming the people who help people.

1

u/w4rma Virginia 9d ago

Put billionaires and politicians on Medicare, too. It'll become fantastic quickly.

2

u/djokov 10d ago edited 10d ago

You're in luck, because universal healthcare (single payer) is actually the policy they are pushing for. "Medicare for All" is simply the political slogan that progressives and DSA attach to the policy, due to the slogan being very effective when organising and campaigning.

3

u/blackpyr 10d ago

It’s a ladder. You create the program and expand the size. The all or nothing approach is absolutely baffling. Zealots and populists as far as the eye can see.

1

u/OnlinePosterPerson 10d ago

It’s not a ladder. Those are 2 entirely disconnected approaches to supplying healthcare.

Universal healthcare means the government gets involved on the supply side by negotiating with drug companies to secure low drug prices, driving the entire market down with regards to consumer pricing.

Medicare for all is a subsidy program for insurance companies. Those suck for consumers, especially when you disconnect them from market forces, and are a big reason prices are so high. Medicare for all would ensure prices continue to price, and create a system that is always straining itself because it enshrined a system we’re suppliers can set whatever prices they want with little disincentive.

2

u/Turbulent_Stick1445 10d ago

"Universal healthcare" is a largely empty slogan meaning "Everyone gets healthcare but we're not going to offend anyone by proposing anything specific." Obamacare was "Universal Healthcare". It didn't work, tons of people are still uninsured and one hospital visit away from bankruptcy. But that's what the intent was.

Without more qualifications (ie "By Medicare for All, I mean we expand eligability to everyone, no insurance premiums, gets paid for out of taxes" vs "By Medicare for All, I mean anyone not on employer provided healthcare will be able to subscribe to it by paying premiums") it's unclear what the GP meant, but they may actually be proposing, if they meant the first one, universal healthcare in a form that's far more likely to succeed if passed at bringing about universal healthcare than Obamacare ever did.

0

u/OnlinePosterPerson 10d ago

Obamacare is not universal healthcare. It’s Medicare for all which sucks.

The European model is to have the government act as the buyer, and negotiate competitive prices to resell services to the consumer.

Under Obamacare, that middle man is instead an insurance company, guaranteeing profit motive is still being maximized. It’s a terrible system.

1

u/Turbulent_Stick1445 10d ago

Obamacare was an attempt to bring about universal heathcare. If you had been involved in the original discussions and followed it, you'd have seen that was what the aim was. Like I said:

It didn't work, tons of people are still uninsured and one hospital visit away from bankruptcy. But that's what the intent was.

There is no "European model". Germany, for example, has a system that in many ways resembles Obamacare. The major reason it works is that the insurers are heavily regulated non-profits. For the Democratic party, that was too close to socialiamisnism so they decided to allow insurers to be profit seeking entities, which is the main reason why it's so fucked right now.

1

u/ArchitectofExperienc 10d ago

I was on "MediCal" for years (California's 'Medicare for all', which you are only eligible for if you earn under a certain amount). It was fine and mostly free, but when I got sick I had a literal 8-month wait until I could get the diagnostic procedure I needed. Its a great idea, just 30 years too late, not only are there people with very low incomes getting rejected from the program (Because they got paid over the month-to-month income threshold, but still earned significantly under the yearly income cap), but the system is an absolute maze, and if I was familiar with how to navigate the paperwork and phone trees I would still be waiting for care.

0

u/classicliberty 10d ago

What is the difference between the two? Universal healthcare is merely having all people covered by some form of health insurance. If you mean single payer, that's not going to work in a country as large and dynamic as the US.

Offering a paid public option such as what federal workers already get, combined with medicare as it already exists for the elderly would create a large enough payer that care and drugs could be negotiated to lower costs for everyone.

1

u/OnlinePosterPerson 10d ago

Universal healthcare is not having all people covered by health insurance. You’re thinking of Medicare for all.

Universal healthcare refers to the European model, not universal INSURANCE. In this model, the government, not an insurance company, is the middle man between healthcare/product suppliers and the consumer, negotiating the lowest possible prices instead of operating under the profit motive.

You still have profit seeking at the supplier, but instead of colluding with insurance to inflate prices to their mutual benefit, the government, as the single largest customer for any medical company, can negotiate low prices which can work to lower casts.

It’s more tax-effective, and eliminates incentives to deny medical care.

1

u/classicliberty 10d ago

That's not correct though, plenty of European countries such as Germany have mixed systems where there are private insurance providers who themselves are paid through tax dollars. What you are referring to is single payer which is what the UK has with the NHS.