 For people who have been watching the Humanist Report for years, you know how popular Medicare for All is. We are at a state in American politics where public support for Medicare for All is larger than 70% and more than 50% of Republicans support it. So these numbers are absolutely huge. The movement that we've seen over the last four years has been incredible. But what's interesting is that you only really hear people in indie media talk about this. In mainstream news pundits, they don't ever really talk about just how popular Medicare for All is. In fact, they only started to even touch any polls with regard to Medicare for All once they figured out a way to refute public support for Medicare for All. So now what they'll often say is, well look, sure Medicare for All is popular. I'll give you that. However, if you ask people if they'd still support Medicare for All, if that means that we'd be getting rid of their private insurance, then support does in fact decrease. Now that's how they argue against Medicare for All. But if you're a mainstream news pundit, then you should be educating people and telling them what's in these bills. And what kept them from doing that, presumably, is this overt conflict of interest. These cable news shows, they have advertisers in the private insurance industry. Of course, they don't want to argue for Medicare for All or even give you the objective details because they know that that would lead to them losing money because that's less advertising dollars because of course these health insurance and big pharma companies, they're not going to advertise on stations who are basically explaining to people how they're getting screwed by these private health insurance companies. But what I hypothesized and argued for because it was obvious is that the reason why you see support for Medicare for All go down isn't because people care about their private health insurance company. Like you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who's vigorously defending Blue Cross Blue Shield. The reason why people care about their private insurance is because they link that to their doctor. They think that these two things, their doctor and their insurance are inextricably linked. But that shows us that we have an opportunity now to educate people and tell them, no, you're not going to lose your doctor if we switch to Medicare for All just because you're losing your private insurance because that's not the way that Medicare for All would work. When you have a private insurance industry in America, there are various networks. But as this user from Reddit points out, when we switch to Medicare for All, we're going to have one giant collective network. And under this one singular network, of course, you will be able to see whatever doctor you want. So you'd have more freedom under Medicare for All than what we currently have. But again, the reason why there's this confusion in the first place is because mainstream media was not educating people. They weren't explaining what Medicare for All entails, again, presumably to appease their health industry and pharmaceutical advertisers. The problem is, you know, as progressives, we can argue until we're blue in the face. But one, we don't have platforms as big as anyone in mainstream news. And up until this point, we haven't had the hard data to back up this point that people link, you know, their doctor to their private health insurance provider. So it's hard to persuade people when you don't have the numbers yet. You can just make an argument based on a hypothesis. And even if it may be a very credible and persuasive hypothesis, you still need numbers and facts and hard data to back it up. So we've never had that until today, when a new poll by Morning Consult confirmed what we've all been saying to nobody's surprise who've been paying attention. As this headline from Common Dreams explains, people don't like insurance companies. They like their doctors. Polls shows majority of voters support abolishing private insurers if they can keep their providers. Now, when you look at the poll here, support for Medicare for All actually dips when it's framed in a way that emphasizes that the role of private health insurance companies will be reduced. However, it surges when you add the explanation that private insurance goes away, but the doctors will stay. Support becomes stronger than ever in that instance. Because as we all know, because we deal with these private health insurance companies, nobody likes them. So if you tell someone, hey, what if I told you that we get rid of these private health insurance companies, you don't have to deal with them, but you still get to keep your doctor, they're going to say a deal. Barf violation. Which is why so many Republicans even support it because we all know as working-class Americans, we know the headache that is produced with these health insurance companies. We know how they rip us off and we have to pay our monthly health insurance premiums as well as deductibles. And it's just, it's so infuriating and frustrating. We don't need to do this. And we don't like it. And this poll finally confirms what we've all been saying. Damn it feels good to be vindicated. Now getting to Jake Johnson of Common Dreams, author of this article, he writes in a statement to Morning Consult, Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign said, these numbers only affirm what the senator has said many times. People don't like insurance companies. They like their doctors and their hospitals. Despite what the pharmaceutical and insurance industries will tell you, the campaign said, Medicare for All is the only proposal that gives Americans the freedom to control their own futures, change jobs, start a family, start a business, and keep their doctor. As Morning Consult's Yusram Marad noted, the new data shows that voters' concerns about virtually abolishing the private insurance industry can be mitigated by clarifying that losing private insurers would not affect access to preferred providers. And this is such a big deal. This poll is so important because these health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, they just lost their number one talking point because they continuously sighed, oh, well, you know, people, they support Medicare for All until you tell them you're going to get rid of their private insurance. But now, they don't like you. This poll confirms that. They like their doctors. And when you educate people, support for Medicare for All is stronger than ever. This is a really, really huge deal. This is incredibly important. I think we all knew that if we phrased the poll in this way, this is the result that would be produced. It's just a matter of, is there going to be a single poll and a pollster that steps up and frames this question in a nonbiased way? And finally, credit where it's due. A morning consult did just that. So now, if I could make a prediction, here's what they're going to argue against. They're going to say, OK, well, sure, we have Medicare for All. You get rid of private insurance companies and you get to keep your doctor. But wasn't this promise made before? Didn't Barack Obama say before that you can keep your doctor? And then what happened? Hundreds of thousands of people lost their doctors. See, the difference is Obama was working within the private health insurance system. And he regulated them in a way that eliminated skinny plans that charge people in arm and a leg, but didn't actually provide them with sufficient coverage. They were basically scams. They were getting ripped off. So by getting rid of these plans, it means that you're effectively eliminating someone's insurance regardless of how good or bad their new insurance will be, which thus means that if you get a new insurance provider, it may be technically better, yes. But you're almost certainly going to be in a different network. Hence, you're going to have to select a different doctor. So that's where Obama went wrong. When you work within the confines of the private health insurance industry, then they get to dictate the terms of our health care system. But under Medicare for All, what we need to be stressing is that networks would no longer exist because we're not playing by the rules of these private health insurance companies. We're all one big network now. So it doesn't matter that you'd lose Blue Cross Blue Shield. You keep your same doctor because every doctor will be under one unified network. Again, let's throw up the graphic from the Reddit user who did a phenomenal job just simply illustrating what Medicare for All would mean. We will all be under one network. So even if Obama did a disservice to healthcare activists by vigorously arguing that you can keep your doctor if you like it, or maybe he said you can keep your insurance, either way, he really, he chipped away at the trust that people have for this claim. So we are going to have to go the extra step to make sure that people understand Medicare for All. But what we need to stress is that we're not playing by the rules of the private health insurance companies because we are changing the rules of the game and we're redesigning the rules. We're blowing up the game and we're getting rid of these private insurance companies. So all doctors, we're erasing these network lines and you can see any one you want to and under Medicare for All, you will have more freedom than ever. So this poll is so important that we need to be stressing this over and over. Whenever you see a mainstream news pundit promote this lie and this insurance industry talking point that well, people don't actually support Medicare for All because it means that it's gonna get rid of their private insurance companies, show them this poll and correct them because they're wrong and they are arguing on behalf of these health insurance companies, probably because there's a monetary advantage to be gained in making that argument.