Home | About | Donate

Fox & Friends Poll Designed to Discredit Medicare for All Explodes in Their Face


Fox & Friends Poll Designed to Discredit Medicare for All Explodes in Their Face

Jake Johnson, staff writer

When President Donald Trump's favorite right-wing television program "Fox & Friends" launched a Twitter poll on Tuesday asking whether the benefits of Medicare for All "outweigh the costs," they likely didn't expect 73 percent of the nearly 32,000 respondents to answer yes—but that's precisely what happened.


What the hell is the difference between a health (“health”) insurance company and a troll under a bridge, anyway? (Answer: The economy of scale.)


If we’re getting through to the Fox&Friends crowd, we’re winning. “Socialist” is no longer a conversation-stopping epithet.


Open discourse about socialism or critiquing capitalism has been suppressed in the mainstream for so long (mainly by self-identified liberals) that most conservatives aren’t even prepared to discuss the concept - except by way of worn-out Cold War tropes from the older right-wingers.

Eventually Fox & Friends, etc. will catch up, but it will take them some time.


This poll is much, much more meaningful than any scietific poll for the simple fact that it was aimed at those most likely to be uninformed about the true benefits of universal health care…and even they know what’s good for them. Way to go, Fox, thanks for the help!


Oops!!! You notice that the “smart” people that worked at Fox are no longer there. Ie, Megyn Kelly (I am not a fan of) or Major Garrett. Meanwhile they are daily struggling with their credibility as seen in some of their “errors” and general fuckups just in the last week.


Guess the oligarchs need to launch a recruiting campaign to hire more “smart” faux noise operatives.


This poll is a game changer across the board.
Dem’s can’t hide behind the “socialism isn’t popular” any more. Completely exposes their corporate candidates for what they are and who they represent.


There is one extra piece of information before I would need before coming to these conclusions - what is the typical response rate for these polls, and based on that, is it possible the 31,650 votes included a significant amount of non-Fox viewers (say because they found out about the poll through social media and decided it’s good for the cause if they call in). If the average is more than 20,000 then I agree, if the average is under 10,000 then I’d begin to wonder if the vote was not an accurate refection of the Fox viewer attitude.

If it is the case that we’ve reached a majority of Fox viewers, I agree that is a reason to be more optimistic.

In my simple mind, I think one of the tasks we should be doing to succeed is to push all the Reps who support H.R. 676 and all the Senators who support S. 1804 to get together and come up with a common bill. Now I know that many people here think HR 676 is the “gold standard” and the Senate should just dump their bill in favor of it, but I think that a) there is detail in the Senate bill that looks more fleshed out (whether in the right or the wrong direction) and adding the right details to defend against the attack that it is a pie in the sky idea is good, and b) it is insulting to Senators to tell them they wasted their time - we are trying to win over Senators after all (or vote new ones in if we can). Though the common bill should be fleshed out more, overly complicated language should be avoided - we should want as many voters as possible to be able to understand the bill so they can agree to or dismiss arguments they hear about the bill from the media or their politicians.


Assuming that HR 676 passes the House, and SB 1804 passes the Senate, a common bill would then be arrived at by the reconciliation process, as is customary.


I am not speaking to the political process you described. I am speaking to the persuasion process. When we get to 80% of the people hammering their politicians they want Medicare for All (or whatever a common bill is called), then we have won - even a few Republicans in swing areas will sign the bill. Getting to 80% looks more feasible if this Fox Poll is an accurate reflection of their viewers. And in my opinion, a common bill is more persuasive - why ask voters to read two bills, that’s stupid.


Isn’t it funny that they never ask us whether the military budget is worth it? The bastards in Congress just go ahead and hand over our tax money to the military industrial complex, no questions asked. Not really funny. We’re talking life vs death. Our masters would rather spend the money on the machinery of death than the caring of life. We now spend more on healthcare than any other country on earth. And not mostly with public money, but, but out of our own after-tax money for insurance, deductibles, sky-high overly priced drugs, etc. Ethics doesn’t even enter into the equation because for the capitalist there is only one objective, money and the accumulation of it at the expense of everything else, even life itself.

Recommended reading:


These welfare state programs have been popular in the US since the New Deal. Social Security is certainly widely popular as is Medicare. The right wing is on weak grounds here. The type of welfare state programs that have been controversial are the ones where large numbers of whites believe they help mainly blacks and whites have to pay most of the bill. Right wing media often lies about these programs to stir up anger that blacks are mainly getting the benefits or are cheating to get more benefits than they deserve. So Medicare for All should be widely popular since it isn’t means tested and everyone benefits. Push back against Medicare for All will come if it is perceived that it involves the rationing of health care. The details should become more apparent if Congress ever gets around to considering it. The US is partially a welfare state and Medicare for All would be consistent with what is already in place.


The issue is not whether Medicare for All is overwhelmingly popular. Of course it is. The issue is what does it take to convince the major parties to represent us and not the corporate entrenched interests that own them. Therein is the problem and it covers everything including wars, military spending, minimum wages, education, infrastructure, climate action and prison reform just to mention a few.


I am in complete agreement. It is one of the few things I hold on to that Howard Dean said (he disgusts me now, but he was still right about this) - Don’t means test benefits! Not for free public college, not for health care (Dean was discussing a Vermont program for children’s health care that everybody paid into (though the rich pay more of course) and everybody can claim - he said it was one of the more popular things Vermont did). Now people even talk of means-testing social security - stupid, stupid, stupid. If rich are taxed a bit more to cover them too (a bit because there aren’t that many of them), they are much less likely to complain about the tax - taxation without benefit is like taxation without representation in a way.

See my earlier comment where I concur that details in the bill are important for public discussion,


Conversation on DN! today with author of “Anti Social Media” - and the argument that we’re seeing a platform that is good for motivation but not for deliberation. The public is still in ADHD media mode and, like the ideologue laden Fox, will probably be catching up back to stabilized reality.


This is the rational for dumping what we have now, which is a system that rations healthcare at the discretion of insurance companies and that denies it outright to those who are uninsured.


But if president Trump signed off on that you know in a few years when the deficit starts going up there going to blame him for it. I vote no on that decision.


The deficit is going through the roof now, yo, due to Trump’s huge tax cuts that benefit the wealthy and a big increase in military spending.

Are you paying attention?


Medicare for All sounds a lot better than Trumpcare for none!