Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I see. Well, I can’t disagree about them.
To us non-populists, it seems apparent that if, as all populists believe, Medicare for some is good, then Medicare for all is even better. To populists, though, Medicare for all will only become good after we have it for a few years and it is the new status quo. Then they will believe that it was always good.
Like lines at the DMV, you’ll learn to accept it as part of the process :)
How does this make sense.
You can reasonably believe providing some provision for some without believing it need apply to all.
I think you misapply populist here. Perhaps the populist left wishes Medicare for all, but I think most would rather a job that can provide them with health care, through wages and self-pay OR benefits.
That might qualify as second-level thinking, whereas the problem with the Left is they’re stuck at first-level thinking, if even that.
The only “complaint” I have about this post, is that it bears the same title as the original. So when I saw it in the “Trending” list, I thought the old one had risen up again somehow, not that it was new/an update.
A “Part 2” or “Redux” or something would have been nice. Although I think if you change it now, it gets demoted back to the Member Feed.
That’s perfectly true, and perfectly relevant.
I’m off balance; to be honest, I was assuming no one would see that counter-argument, so I didn’t need to assemble my thoughts into an answer. (This is twice now that you’ve done this, Stina!)
I hope I can articulate my thoughts and give you the answer you deserve.
But the people who favor making it one-size-fits-all don’t like to do a lot of thinking to start with. Having a system with OPTIONAL “single-payer” would be just one more decision they don’t want to have to make.
I didn’t think that’s where this was going.
I was referring more to what we have now. Not some “free choice” for medicare for all.
We currently have a population that widely supports social safety nets. I’d go so far as to say it’s near universal, with some caveat.
But while we may disagree on how much safety net to offer, I’m pretty sure Medicare for All is the last thing at least half the country wants.
Maybe. But a lot of people with Obamacare policies can’t afford to actually USE THEM, because the deductibles are ridiculous. There’s a good argument that Obamacare was just an intentional first step – or several steps – toward single-payer, for those exact reasons.