Donald Trump says he wants to run on the border. Is this a sound strategy? Here's the share of Republicans who say the border is their #1 issue:
The border ranks second in importance among Republicans (the economy is first), generally getting about a 15% share over the past few years. But it's spiked recently, and if the economy continues to improve it could easily go up more. It still seems a little iffy to me given the moderate energy it seems to produce even among Republicans, but it could work.
And while we're at it, I happened to notice another trend while I was looking at the immigration numbers:
Look at that. Since the start of the Biden administration support for universal health care has gone up from 20% to 45% among Republicans. Interesting.
I'm assuming by "universal healthcare" Republicans mean signing everyone up for some kind of church-sponsored prayer chain if you get sick or something.
I doubt that very much. Many Republicans are big fans of social insurance. The majority of human beings are. For whatever reason, though, they often vote on guns or crime or immigrants or what have you.
I will never believe polling on universal healthcare unless folks ALSO learn about the likely tradeoffs (tax increases, ability to keep your current Doctor etc) associated with this change. Else, its like walking into the Southwest Airlines terminal, showing folks a video of your private jet, and ask folks if they are interested WITHOUT mentioning the cost.
Without question, universial, socialized healthcare would be much, much cheaper *in the aggregate* compared to what we spend now. The question is how those costs are shared and who pays them. Using your analogy, right now, some US consumers are already flying those private jets, some are flying business class or coach, and a lot of others are stuffed into the cargo containers in the hold and others just left behind with no refunds. What if everyone just flew Southwest? It's more about convincing the private jet flyers (i.e. those with really good private insurance right now) to agree to the Southwest model. And convincing all the managers, pilots, flight attendants, and maintenance people throughout the system to take *massive* paycuts to make sure everyone can afford tickets on the discounted airline.
So yes, not as easy as at it seems. But not for the reasons you suggest.
Universal healthcare does not require imposing pay cuts on actual health care providers (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, ambulance attendants, etc.) to save money. The typical single payer system has administrative overhead of about 3% of budget, whereas in the US the figure is over 30%. A single payer system in the US would result in literally millions of insurance company bureaucrats being laid off, and the providers also laying off a bunch of people whose only function is to wrestle with the insurance companies.
Streamlining administrative costs would certainly be a benefit, although it's not exactly a straightforward thing to identify where all the costs are really hidden (see this article, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8313956/). But there is simply no way a publically-funded healthcare system would be even remotely sustainable under current compensation models for health care providers, even accounting for "administrative bloat". There's a reason physicians and nurses in Canada, the UK and other OECD countries make only 1/3 to 1/2 what their US counterparts do.
I will never believe polling on universal healthcare unless folks ALSO learn about the likely tradeoffs
What you're really saying is "I don't think people who support such and such a policy are sufficiently well-informed." Fair enough. Maybe you're right, maybe not.
But that doesn't tell us anything about the sincerity of their views, or the validity of a particular pollster's methodology. So it's not really tenable to say you don't "believe" polling numbers on healthcare for these reasons. Probably a more accurate way to state your concern is: "the polling on a healthcare reform may change once voters know the details (in some cases that's not until it's implemented)." And indeed it might change, depending on the specifics of the plan. Then again, Obamacare's popularity has relentlessly increased over the years: voters apparently like it the better they know it.
Humans like social insurance.
The comments on my post raise valid points that my analogy is flawed. No worries.
My broader point, big policy changes such as national health care, almost always involve material tradeoffs: asking folks if they like a policy, without mentioning the tradeoffs, often leads to skewed results in favor of the policy.
Given the facts of this particular it seems just as likely ( if not more) that the skewed results run in the opposite direction.
People's views on medicare are certainly a strong indication that you have this backwards.
You're showing your cards here.
jdubs - I believe you are misreading the broad point I am trying to make, which has very little to do with health care. Rather, polling on virtually ALL complex issues have a similar problem.
Let me use global warming as an alternative example. Questions:
1. Would you like a clean environment and stop global warming?
2. Would you be willing to pay X in additional taxes, or give up Y, to have a clean environment and stop global warming?
I suspect you would get meaningfully different responses, to the two questions I show above.
+1
Without bad faith…..
Republicans would have no arguments at all….
Republicans #1 issue is pwning the libs. They don't care about any issue except as it can be used as a cudgel against Democrats.
You're confusing republicans with MAGA. Some of us non-MAGA republicans actually care more about issues than just "owning the libs".
Hey, conservatives!
You are the smart people!
US states had 65,000 rape-related pregnancies after banning abortion,
https://web.archive.org/web/20240125042743/https://www.newscientist.com/article/2413829-us-states-had-65000-rape-related-pregnancies-after-banning-abortion/
This was the plan all along, wasn't it?
Nonsense. Republicans are super concerned about the border. It's a political cudgel that they use with great effect.
Your numbers don’t work among Republicans that are actually bothering to vote.
“In New Hampshire, about 4 in 10 Republican voters identify immigration as the most critical issue facing the United States. About 7 in 10 say immigrants in the U.S. today do more to hurt the country than help it. And 8 in 10 favor building a wall along the southern border.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/about-half-of-gop-voters-in-new-hampshire-concerned-about-trumps-ability-to-win-general-election-ap-votecast-shows#:~:text=Immigration%20is%20a%20bigger%20priority%20than%20economy&text=In%20New%20Hampshire%2C%20about%204,wall%20along%20the%20southern%20border.
“About 4 in 10 GOP caucusgoers chose immigration as the most important issue facing the country, according to AP VoteCast. About one-third said it was the economy. Fewer people named other priorities, including foreign policy, health care, abortion or energy.
The vast majority, about three-quarters, say immigrants are a negative for the country, an indication that caucusgoers are not only seeking more order on the U.S. southern border but major cuts on how many foreigners can come into the country.
About 9 in 10 in the survey back building a wall along that border, with about 7 in 10 expressing strong support for the idea that was first championed by Trump during his 2016 campaign.“
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/iowa-caucusgoers-see-immigration-as-more-important-than-the-economy-ap-votecast-says
For all the handwringing about immigration, how many Americans actually experience anything detrimental in their lives as a result of immigration, legal or illegal? Very damn few, I wager.