POLL: Medicare For All Is Extremely Popular

Read More At:

Support The Show On Patreon:

Here's Our Amazon Link:

Follow Kyle on Twitter:

Like the show on Facebook:

Clip from The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio Monday – Friday 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Eastern time zone.

Listen to the Live Show or On Demand archive at:

Check out our website – and become a member – at:

POLL: Medicare For All Is Extremely Popular

68 thoughts on “POLL: Medicare For All Is Extremely Popular

    • Ray Hawkins The point of any insurance is to spread out the cost of healthcare so that people do not go bankrupt. Single payer is no different. It actually becomes cheaper and more efficient when it covers more people (so it is best to go with a national single payer system). A national system would also have far more power to negotiate prices.

      At the local (city/county level) there is a high probability that the city might not have the funds (too many people get sick for one reason or another such as lead contamination, or the city/county just doesn’t have the income).
      At the city and state levels, there is also a very high risk that the program will be shut down or money will be funneled out into the pockets of some business or politician. State and local politicians are usually more corrupt than federal politicians, especially in conservative states like Texas.

    • Chris, the supremacy clause is not what you think. The reason why the US does not have slavery is because of a constitutional amendment. A prisons can use prisoners as slaves if it is a form of punishment.

    • ” Whether you live in a state with a 5 million electorate or a country
      with a 200 million electorate, you have little actual “control” over how
      a program is ran. ”

      Not true. I am active in my community and I am aware in what goes on. And if I do not like how my local government acts I can either change it or move and remain a US citizen.

  1. Kyle, when are you going to learn that being popular and winning are for losers? It’s all about the sweet, sweet donor money.

    • This also has to do with policy. Democrats are also often PAID to be weak, not introduce, or to vote no on legislature or regulations Americans greatly prefer, and that’s why there’s a lackluster backing of the establishment party. We know they’ve sold out, and do not reflect what the people want, so this type of legislation is often not introduced by any character or group that would stand to threaten the status quo. BUT now, with a big swing on the side of people becoming politically engaged, we’re seeing legislators actually feel threatened, potentially into action. And there’s a magic number that we’ll eventually cross between public approval and investor’s interests. And eventually some politician is going to be smart enough and run as a straight up banner-man of the people, and it could even be a sociopath who’s honestly not interested in humanitarianism. But they better have a hefty body guard system, because trimming so many pockets some of the most influential businesses to our government will not come without a lot of personal danger.

    • +Jace — let me spell it out for you. Single payer controls costs by controlling docs/nurses compensation and deciding how much they can make. This is why there are chronic doctor shortages in every single payer country. You put that in here and watch how many thousands of older docs/nurses retire and say to hell with it. What good is coverage if there is no doctor to see you?

    • Jace thinks that Bernie is going to fly in with his unicorn and save everyone and that doctors are magically going to appear.

    • It’s not a problem of supply, it’s a problem of demand. There’s more people that can afford medical attention therefore there’s a bigger demand for doctors. The US is actually pretty average when it comes to amount of doctor compared to other western nations. The thing is that those doctors have way less patients. Yes they’re being paid more sure, but it’s apparently not a big factor for someone choosing to become a doctor.

      To prove my point, the number of doctors per 1000 people in a few countries are as follow. Data comes from the UN and they come from census done between 2009 and 2011 :
      Cuba : 6.592
      Norway: 3.739
      Germany: 3.689
      Sweden: 3.265
      Finland: 2.905
      US: 2.452
      Canada : 2.068
      Mexico: 1.991

      Keep in mind those numbers tend to be stable or go on an upward trend year to year. So more people are choosing to become doctors.


      It’s not really the doctors that are making bank in the US either, it’s the hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies that do. Hence why they lobby so much against single payer, they stand a lot to lose. The doctors ? Not so much, they do stand to have to work more, but considering their salary, I can’t really feel bad for them.

    • whyamimrpink78 stop citing AEI, we know their funding creates conflicts of interest (exon mobile, buisness Hawks Koch brothers)

  2. Uh, sorry, Kyle but this video cannot be monetized because Medicare for all is not family friendly. DisneyTube has too much invested in corporate Democrats. Have a nice day!

  3. You are not entitled to my taxes to heal your sick kid from cancer, you poor peasant.
    IDGAF if your health insurance doesn’t want to cover all of it. Go into bankruptcy for all I care.
    That’ll teach you to breed, you person of color you.

    Now get back to making me money and tell your pregnant wife that after she cleans the afterbirth from the floor she can go to the hospital to deliver her baby. And then you can tell her she’s fired.

    Praise be the free market.

    • Don’t let us get in your way. If we pass single payer, in the USA, you will still be able to buy a cadillac plan, that will guarantee you options we will have to pay for ourselves, like face lifts, and fat removal. There will still be doctors, who operate private practices, to cater to people like you. England + Canada both have insurance policies for special people, like you.

    • Leopold C “You must buy this product/service or be fined by your federal government” said NO FOUNDING FATHER…..ever

    • No, but they did say only people with land can vote. The average white man was not allowed to vote until 1850. The founding fathers viewed the average person in the lower classes to be too stupid to make a smart voting decision, so that is why we have the electoral college.

    • “They would be less expensive if the government stopped taking tax money to pay for those things.”

      The government doesn’t pay for private industries. Can you be more specific?

      “America doesn’t have a private market, we have a highly regulated, half private half public market. Places like Singapore or Switzerland have more of a free market when it comes to insurance.”

      Yeah, that’s called a hybrid system. There are some services that do better in the private market and do better in the public sector.

      Those countries have a form of universal healthcare. Is that what you would be in favor of? Even that isn’t fully privatized and the US is the only country in the west that doesn’t have that.

      “It is not a fact that single payer would benefit most people, it will only benefit the unemployed or underemployed at the direct expense of the employed, while making their care worse.”

      I’ve had right wingers say the same thing about welfare. There are people in this country that work full time and still have to get welfare. Even people who are full time employed are one accident away from going bankrupt to medical bills.

      “Ok, how’s this for an argument, it massively increases wait times, it gives the government control of something they spent years screwing up for us, and single payer doesn’t mean good service. Private healthcare is better in almost every way. ”

      1. Yes, Canada does have an issue with waiting times, and they considered going back to multi-payer, but Australia did the switch from universal healthcare to single payer and they found that the waiting times were even worse.

      2. Just because something is government run doesn’t make it bad. Does that mean I’m in favor of government running everything? No, but you need a better argument than the scare tactic of “government control.” Also yes the government has screwed it up, by giving insurance and pharmaceutical companies too much power. Before you mention Obamacare, keep in mind that that’s a individual mandate system. That’s a right wing policy.

      3. Is there a chance that the care is not as good as private? Sure, but by how much? The far right would probably tell you that the Canadians deal with cancer by putting a band-aid on you. Even Trump himself saw that the Canadian system would be better.

      There are plenty of flaws with single payer and universal healthcare, but it sure beats what the US has now.

    • caller 347 Exactly, they wanted to keep the power with the state governors. They were afraid they couldn’t control us, and without the corrupt media, they probably couldn’t.

    • Virsic Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, and the whole GOP don’t know that, apparently. To them, money grows on trees, so paying half your paycheck seems totally reasonable to dunces like them. Absolutely ridiculous human beings.

    • I was about to say where the hell did Muslims come in?

      I always face palm whenever people bring up Venezuela. It’s way more complicated than that. Also the majority of the western world has more social programs than the US does and they are doing well for themselves.

    • Whenever they run out of arguments they like to change the subject.

      “You are in favor of left leaning economic policies, that means you’re ok with Islamic terrorism, durp durp.”

    • caller347 muslims are the new Jews. It’s fun to blame them for all the worlds problems because intellectually lazy people don’t have to come up with any real ideas

    • IDK; if I recall correctly, he only covered Brexit just before the referendum. Given that this election is _less_ important, I reckon he might cover it afterwards, but maybe not, since we’ll almost certainly be going from Tory “majority” to Tory “majority”.

    • AlphaMIkeOmega yeah why vote for a man advocating Brexit for the last four decades over a Remainer who has seven years of incompetence on their record(?)

    • but at least he doesn’t support repealing Obamacare unlike his opponent, so what do you prefer, 24 M uninsured or 50M for 2026?

    • I’d prefer us have single-payer or a public option. What we have now is a system that forces people into an insurance industry designed to exploit them is guaranteed to both (1) be generally hated and (2) not provide great care. Most people who file medical bankruptcy, which is the number one cause of bankruptcy, have medical insurance.

      We need to know how many people have access to care, not how many more people have insurance. They are not the same, as insurance companies are often a barrier to care. If we actually stand up for our values, we have have 100% of people have access to medical care by 2026. If we don’t, Dems are going to keep losing.

  4. Here in the UK, we love our NHS (National Health Service) more than we love our Queen, too bad the Tories are killing it.

    Killing the NHS, not the Queen lol

    • “With 45,000 people dying from lack of healthcare every year”

      That is around 0.01% of the population, that is noise. You cannot say, with high certainty, that the sole reason why they die is because of lack of healthcare, if that is even a reason why they die at all.

    • whyamimrpink78 So,because they are a small percent of the population,it doesn’t matter?Wow,that’s pretty fucked up and unpro-life of you. Around 30,000 people die from gun deaths every year,should we do nothing about it because it’s a “small percent of the population”?Around 42,000 people die from suicide every year,should we do nothing because it’s a “small percent of the population”? 45,000 people dying in a year equates to around 123 people dying in a day,that’s a lot of people dying.But,who cares about those people dying from being unable to get the help they need,we should keep raising prices for drugs and healthcare and make it even harder for people to get help. You are a fucking moron.

    • “So,because they are a small percent of the population,it doesn’t matter?”

      No, they matter. I am saying it is noise. You are saying that the sole reason why they die is because of lack of healthcare access. You cannot say that. Those individuals are typically poor and have poor health to begin with due to personal life choices. Obesity and diabetes rates are higher for those in poverty for example. Also, those who are poor have a higher rate of teenage pregnancies and drop out rates which indicates being irresponsible. Those are factors that lead to them dying, not just lack of healthcare.

      “Around 30,000 people die from gun deaths every year,should we do nothing
      about it because it’s a “small percent of the population”?”

      Around 2/3 of that are suicides.

      “That is why they died and there are studies that prove it. ”

      The studies even admit their limitations. I am not saying it isn’t a problem. I am saying that you can’t just say that those 45,000 die only because of lack of healthcare access. Even if they have access to healthcare nothing indicates they would use it properly. Right now K-12 education is offered to everyone in the US but still 12% of the population do not have a high school diploma.

  5. the 12 percent of democrats that oppose this: leave the party please. We don’t want you. Go check the libertarian box or whatever.

  6. I am from germany, we have a socialised healthcare system already and its good because its rather fair.
    i find it kinda sad how most people who want medicare for all want it because of emotional reasons. but the MAIN REASON why a socialised Healthcare system makes sense is: Illneses/accidents are mostly RNG. and because of this GAMBLE it has to be socialised. u could e.g. imagine a family: the one son has a happy life and never ever has health problems (with not socialised healthcare system he would now have a lot of money which was saved for health issues) HIS BROTHER on the other hand gets CANCER, the treatment of his cancer costs A LOT of MONEY. wouldnt it be fair from the first guy who was lucky to help his brother with the costs?. and as soon as Health care is socialised you HAVE TO TAX UNHEALTHY FOOD ITEMS!! you somehow have to charge people who live an intentional unhealthy lifestyle a bit more because they create more costs.

    • Kymate
      I had 4 family members who have died from cancer in the fatherland and none where treated with what we consider minimal care. They were made to wait for weeks to see a doctor which only accelerated their death. Drugs that were available here were denied in Germany. After some research, I discovered that several drugs in the states would not be made available for cancer patients in Germany. Cancer is expensive. Dead people aren’t. I survived cancer only because I live in this country and had the resources to pay. it all comes down to money. As it will here with socialized medicine.
      Gutten tag.

  7. KYLE – YOU NEED TO RUN FOR OFFICE _ You are an excellent speaker, and you are passionate about the issues – You are a shoe-in!

  8. There is only one thing that can explains why the Democratic party doesn´t run on this. The corporate democrats KNOW this is a winning issue but they can´t support it because of their corporate donors.

    • This is why We the People are working to get rid of big $ where it never belongs-in our elections, government and governance. This effort needs all the help we can give.

    • That’s giving them too much credit, I think. Yes, they’re afraid of upsetting corporate donors, but in this case I actually think many dems are ideologically opposed to the idea of single payer. They don’t want it. Many people think that if we just get rid of money in politics everything will be great; but that actually oversimplifies the problem. We also have to win the ideological fight against many Dems (which of course would be easier without money in politics).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *