A newly released Rasmussen national poll published on Thursday found nearly half of U.S voters oppose universal healthcare, namely “Medicare for All.”
The findings spell trouble for all of the Democratic candidates especially those that have made universal healthcare like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren their centurial theme.
The poll found 46% of likely U.S. voters oppose universal healthcare while just 39% are in favor of such a program.
Moreover, 56% of people making under $30,000 a year would not be willing to pay any more in taxes in exchange for a government-run healthcare system like Medicare for All.
The survey also found that individuals 18 to 39 years of age by a margin of 40% are not willing to pay more taxes to accommodate a government-run healthcare program, while 45% of African Americans would also reject paying additional taxes.
When it comes to specifically Democratic voters, the poll found some interesting anomalies, for example, 32% of voting Democrats are willing to pay “any cost” in higher taxes in exchange for Medicare for All.
However, 22% of Democrats are only willing to fork over $100 a year in taxes in support of a government-run program, like Medicare for All.
On the flip side, an astounding 32% are not willing to pay any additional taxes in support of Medicare for All.
This latest poll was conducted at the beginning of November (this month), and asked 1,000 likely voters if they supported Medicare for All, compared to a similar poll published on September 18th which found that 41% of likely voters opposed the universal health care program while 44% were in favor.
Both polls conducted approximately 2-months apart had a margin of sampling error of +/- 3%, showing a decrease in support of Medicare for All. In both the November and September polls, 15% were undecided.
The growing dilemma for 2020 Demarcates is that all of the candidates have publicly signed on to some type of universal government-run healthcare program.
In Bernie’s case, the 78 year old socialist has taken Medicare for All to mean that even none citizens and illegal aliens would be entitled to Medicare for All.
The Vermont Senator has repeatedly said on the campaign trail, that his program would indeed cover the reputed 11 to 15 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States, at an estimated cost of more than $32 trillion dollars.
In fact Bernie’s plan is similar to the one he instituted in his home state of Vermont years ago, which ended after almost 4-years, when the state nearly went bankrupt, because the healthcare budget alone, nearly equaled the entire state budget, while Vermont citizens were faced with nearly an 11% increase in taxes. The program was initially dropped.
However that experience hasn’t dissuaded Sanders from proclaiming on the campaign trail, “We’re gonna … create a Medicare for All health care system which guarantees health care to every man, woman, and child.”
Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank, explained the appeal of getting “free stuff.”
“Medicare for All is popular to those who assume it will cost them nothing,” Riedl explained. “Once Medicare for All moves from aspiration to actual legislation, the costs will become evident, and support will collapse. Medicare is sold as a ‘free lunch.’ But that will collapse once Democrats get down a legislative path and reveal that the numbers don’t add up. It’s a vague aspiration.”
To make matters even dicier for 2020 Democrats, THE Heritage Foundation crunched the numbers regarding how European-style programs like Medicare for All, similar to that within the UK would translate to the American taxpayer.
The study found that single U.S. workers making $40,000 would see a $6,000 increase in income tax.
Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst Adam Michel, the author of the report, noted in the study, Entitlement programs “do require higher taxes, but they don’t give us ‘better’ anything. Instead, you get a larger, more intrusive government that often doesn’t meet the needs of the typical American. The more we centralize things in Washington, the less those services are able to be tailored to what any individual or community needs.”