Try the political quiz

17.5k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

Yes

 @9GQV4B7  from Texas agreed…5mos5MO

Top Agreement

Those who are unfortunate enough to not make enough money to pay for Health care have every right to an equal opportunity and that is what our country's ideals and constitution is based on.

 @9GGYX2W from Virginia agreed…5mos5MO

Healthcare for lower income people is important to ensure the safety and health of everyone in America which is most important.

 @9GGZJY5 from California agreed…5mos5MO

i agree with it, although it is not always the less fortunate that spread illnesses, its mostly more wealthy people who don't believe in vaccines

 @9GGZTJY from South Carolina agreed…5mos5MO

if something can be broken that was never built properly in the first place. The United States has never invested in its mental health care systems the way that we have for physical health.

 @9F8FF2M from Oregon agreed…7mos7MO

According to the American Journal of Public Health, almost 45,000 annual deaths are caused by the lack of health insurance. Just because someone is impoverished doesn't mean they deserve to die because they can't afford the greatly expensive health care they need.

 @9GKFN65  from California agreed…5mos5MO

Medicaid has statistically shown to be more efficient at providing adequate healthcare insurance than any private healthcare. The government isn't motivated by profit so they don't have the incensitive to increase the cost of premiums. If we can't have universal healthcare then supporting medicaid is the next best option.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No

 @9F72VHN from Massachusetts disagreed…7mos7MO

Top Disagreement

I think that everyone should be entitled to healthcare because it's not fair to have your entire life stripped away from you for something you didn't even cause

 @HouseOfRepsSnipeLibertarianfrom Ohio disagreed…7mos7MO

While it's certainly important to ensure everyone has access to necessary medical care, the issue is more complex than that. For instance, increasing federal funding for Medicaid may lead to increased taxes or government borrowing, which could have negative effects on the economy and individual financial health. An example of this is the European model, where high tax rates fund universal health care, but can limit economic growth and individual financial freedom. How would you suggest we balance the need for health care access with potential economic drawbacks?

 @9F5G5ST from California disagreed…7mos7MO

Most people in the United States are poor because they come from a family of immigrants. Why remove the option from people who work and need it to aid their children?

 @9FGBDQ4Democrat from Virginia agreed…6mos6MO

some people might disagree and the "equality" that people rich or people with lower income should receive the same but its a dependency on the government that gives people with a low income that opportunity

 @9FR2JHN from Oklahoma disagreed…6mos6MO

I believe Medicaid is important but shouldn't be required unless we also require more universal options for all.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

Yes, but I prefer switching to a single payer healthcare system

 @9F89X44Independent from Ohio agreed…7mos7MO

I believe switching to a single payer system would help with ensuring everyone in the country is provide with sufficient healthcare

 @9F7GMRZ from Idaho agreed…7mos7MO

It wouldn't increase taxes much on normal citizens, just on really rich people. Free healthcare is a moderate policy in many other countries. People are happier in those countries.

 @9GZS3SVSocialist from Georgia agreed…4mos4MO

Every other developed country uses some firm t if single payer and has better health outcomes across the board. This wouldn't solve the social issues of employer-mandated sick hours and wage loss, but would help us all to live longer, healthier lives.

 @9GZBQ43 from New York agreed…4mos4MO

By removing the private healthcare apparatuses from the picture, people would not pay for private insurance, as it would be included in their taxes. This would also give the government more leverage in negotiations with drug companies and hospitals on pricing.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

Yes, but only increase for the elderly and disabled

 @9GYMB2S from Iowa agreed…4mos4MO

Free medicaid will just encourage low-income families to continue not working, because the government will be funding their schooling, food, and health.

 @9HXHZVSIndependent from Florida agreed…3mos3MO

Its hard to get Medicaid because theres to many poor people so its harder to qualify and if you don't qualify you will die. The average people on Medicaid in florida is more than 5 million.

 @9FLJFM6 from Texas disagreed…6mos6MO

I have no counterargument on this subject, the elderly and disabled should get as much help they need no matter what. They are the most vulnerable in our society so they should be taken care of.

 @9FLDP5P from Ohio disagreed…6mos6MO

I believe in low or NO taxes for citizens. Funding bloated safety nets for segmented populations always ends in corruption and control. If we the people could keep our money throughout our lives to invest and use at our own discretion then we would be able to take care of ourselves with private financial mechanisms. There will always be that segment of population that doesn’t prepare for their future, but local communities, churches, and volunteer groups should be the answer. It has never been the federal government’s job to take care of us.. I believe it’s inherently unamerican, and it’s a drain on all taxpayers. Especially considering the corruption of elected officials which ALWAYS happens!

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No, and abolish Medicaid

 Removed by authordisagreed…7mos7MO

Top Disagreement

Medicaid is important because it ensures our elderly have all the chances of receiving medical care as any other American.

 @9FTPTYL from Illinois agreed…6mos6MO

Many American citizens can't afford healthcare so it's important for the people of the U.S. to get good healthcare.

 @WidgeonEddieLibertarianfrom Maine disagreed…7mos7MO

While I wholeheartedly agree that our elderly deserve the best care, it's worth noting that Medicaid isn't their primary source of health coverage - that would be Medicare. That being said, Medicaid does supplement Medicare for low-income seniors, covering costs that Medicare doesn't.

However, the question here is whether more federal funding should be allocated to Medicaid. One argument against this is that increasing funding might discourage states from managing their Medicaid programs efficiently. For example, if a state knows it will receive more federal funds, it may be less incentivized to control costs.

What do you think about this? Could there be a way to increase funding while still encouraging states to manage their programs effectively?

 @9FD6XBF from Mississippi disagreed…6mos6MO

While medicate might provide our elderly with medical care, the costs and processes to get it and it work are not benefiting to the individual as they will end up paying more for health care in the end.

 @The-Patriot  from California disagreed…6mos6MO

Instead of receiving public funds for health care, taxes should be reduced and social security should be capped at its current rates and participants so citizens can save up for their retirement out of their own personal income.

 @9F8TRQG from California disagreed…7mos7MO

seeing how low income people are more prone to disease and sickness, taking medicaid away would just allow more people to die due to not being able to afford healthcare.

 @9GXG9S6 from Minnesota disagreed…5mos5MO

It allows people with low income to get health insurance when the government otherwise would not provide them with good coverage.

 @9GXHFL3 from California agreed…5mos5MO

I agree especially because this country seems to have a vendetta against those in low-income households.

 @9F8B6V6 from Virginia disagreed…7mos7MO

Not every person is above the poverty line and for those who have multiple kids, it'd be harder to pay for health insurance.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No, and eligibility should only include the elderly and disabled

 @9F4M3X5 from Georgia disagreed…7mos7MO

Top Disagreement

How would those who are incapable of producing the money to pay for medical services live? What about those who've lost employment to no fault of their own? This stance only makes sense on the surface.

 @BuckLarryProgressive from Maine disagreed…7mos7MO

While I understand your concerns, it is also important to consider the fiscal health of our country. Continuously increasing funding for social programs without a balanced budget could lead to the devaluation of our currency and inflation. For instance, in the 1980s, many Latin American countries experienced hyperinflation due to excessive government spending. This resulted in severe economic instability and poverty. Instead, perhaps we should focus on creating more robust job programs and affordable housing to help lower-income individuals get back on their feet. What are your thoughts on this approach?

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…7mos7MO

Yes, but I prefer switching to a single payer healthcare system

The economy is made up

 @9FN2SGW  from Texas disagreed…6mos6MO

There are much more people with unavoidable illnesses that aren’t considered elderly or disabled. Also, if something a diagnosis isn’t considered “serious enough” it could cost people their lives which is why health care should be offered to everyone and not just those who can afford it and not just those who qualify for free Medicaid from the government. The lower middle class suffer the most.

 @98NVJ3P  from North Carolina disagreed…7mos7MO

To people who are unable to afford healthcare because their income does not allow it nor for them to receive private insurance, Medicaid is essential.

 @9FF2LN7Women’s Equalityagreed…6mos6MO

Yes. I could expect that healthcare was exceptionally great, and the healthcare should always be expanded, and so does the private insurances.

 @9F6RZ39 from Illinois disagreed…7mos7MO

Everyone need the help for certain things think of it as if you were really sick disables how would you get the help.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No, and each state should decide their own level of coverage

 @9F7VNN3 from Texas disagreed…7mos7MO

So states have no compassion for immigrants or poor people and give them the least amount of help. If we came together as a country we could vote on how much it the least amount and most amount we can offer them. Each state could choose their amount around the average we gave them.

 @9F82M83 from California disagreed…7mos7MO

I disagree that state should cover their coverage of Medicaid. Medicaid should be handled as a federal problem. For example in states that feel more opposed to Medicaid this harms anyone who needs the benefit.

 @9F6WN8WDemocrat from Nebraska disagreed…7mos7MO

I disagree that state should cover their coverage of Medicaid. Medicaid should be handled as a federal problem. For example in states that feel more opposed to Medicaid this harms anyone who needs the benefit.

 @9F6CQWS from Texas disagreed…7mos7MO

non-expansion states would not only help prevent coverage loss for low-income parents, young adults, and postpartum people during the unwinding, they could also increase overall access to health coverage

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No, and the federal government should not increase funding for any social programs

 @9F8DNS2Women’s Equalitydisagreed…7mos7MO

I think they should because there are people who struggle to afford Medicaid and it could be life threatening.

 @9F8FF2M from Oregon disagreed…7mos7MO

The federal government should increase funding for Medicaid's social programs because it is constitutional to make sure that everyone has equal access to health care. Having access to medical support is a human right and should be emphasized when government officials consider where to direct their money.

 @9F7PBNN from South Carolina disagreed…7mos7MO

The way inflation has been going things are going to be getting much more expensive, and the average american citizen will have very little money left over and will not be able to afford any treatment or procedure that they may need. This causes them to be unable to get the care that they need and physically suffer because the government wouldn't pay for their care like it should under government-funded healthcare.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...