Gallup Finds Americans Are Ideological Suckers About Healthcare

Eric Zuesse

Gallup headlined on November 23rd, “In U.S., 51% Say Government Should Ensure Healthcare Coverage,” and reported that, when asked “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?” 51% choose “Yes, government responsibility,” and 47% choose “No, not government responsibility.”

In other words: more Americans are socialists than are not socialists.

According to core socialist belief, basic healthcare is a human right that applies equally to all citizens; all socialists believe that though some dermatological and other treatments should be available only on the basis of an individual’s ability-to-pay, healthcare that’s essential for living a pain-free and economically productive life should be available to everyone equally, no matter how little income they have.

And, by contrast, capitalists believe that if you get into a traffic accident or get a dread disease and need medicines that cost $300,000 per year, and maybe expensive surgery, etc., and you can’t afford that, you should just die — tough luck, you’re not ‘worth’ the cost, but any billionaire automatically would be  worth it.

However, here were the results of the most extensive ideological survey of Americans, and it showed that Americans overwhelmingly reject  “socialism”; they are “capitalists” instead:


DECEMBER 28, 2011

“A Political Rhetoric Test”

[1,521 scientifically randomly selected Americans]


Socialism: 60/31

Libertarian: 37/38

Capitalism: 40/50

Liberal: 39/50

Conservative: 30/62

Progressive: 22/67

Selecting between the two economic systems “Capitalism” v. “Socialism,” Americans overwhelmingly chose capitalism: 50% favorable to that, versus only 31% favorable to socialism.

Selecting between the four political systems “Libertarian” v. “Liberal” v. “Conservative v. “Progressive,” Americans chose progressive first, and then conservative second, as if those two political ideologies — progressivism and conservatism — aren’t actually opposites, with progressives seeking progress, and conservatives seeking stability (if not regress).

Pew reported: “As many Democratic strategists have argued, the term progressive receives a far more positive reaction from the American public than the term liberal (67% vs 50%), though the difference is primarily among Republicans.” In other words: so many Republicans were so illogical as to think that a person can be both “progressive” and “conservative” at the same time; and these ‘progressive’ “conservative” people were the Republicans who constituted the reason why “progressive” had the highest overall rating of all four political ideologies. (What about “false truth” then? Or: “Give me that white black item.” Or: “I want both good and bad, black and white. I can’t decide.” A person who wants truth mixed with falsity, doesn’t really want truth, but instead myth. And, polls show, they’re mainly Republicans.)


Back at the start of 2011, the ratio of Gallup’s respondents who on healthcare favored “Yes, government responsibility” was 50%, and the “No, not government responsibility” respondents were 46%; so, that (50% to 46%, versus today’s 51% to 47% figures) was essentially the same as today. However, because of the millions of dollars in Republican propaganda during 2011 about “death panels” in Obamacare, which flood of sucker-baits swamped America’s airwaves and newsstands during that year, this percentage reversed during that year, and so at the end of the year only 44% said “Yes,” and the “No”s were now 54%. Obviously, a huge proportion of Americans were suckers about “death panels” and other such propaganda. A switch from 50% that went down to 44%, and from 46% that went up to 54%, constituted a sea-change in the public’s perceptions, which was generated by huge propaganda to suckered fools about “death panels” etc. Almost all of those people were Republicans. Very few Democrats swallowed the line about “death panels.”

However, many Democrats too were suckers, in their own way. On 4 March 2015 I headlined, “Obama’s Biggest Lie About Obamacare” and I reported:

He promised “universal coverage” but delivered a plan in which that was impossible. Consequently, whereas 85.4% of Americans had coverage in 2008, only 87.7% have coverage today, far short of the promised 100% — though 100% coverage [universal coverage] is the norm in industrialized countries. The reason: Universal coverage requires that healthcare be treated as a right not a privilege, but doing that would cut billions from profits to healthcare stockholders, who include most of the aristocracy — and America is run for the aristocracy’s benefit, not for the public’s — and the aristocracy’s ads and PR controls what the public know and what the public prefer.

So: Democrats are supporting the healthcare system from the ‘Democrat’ Barack Obama, even though Obama promised “universal coverage” and lied to them; and even though he could have rallied the public to support universal healthcare — healthcare as a right not a privilege — and he chose not to do so (because his financial backers didn’t want him to — he’s corrupt, and so his Obamacare does nothing to the corruption that makes America’s dysfuntional health care system also the world’s costliest).

Further insight regarding whether the public are “socialists” in all but name, is:

Both Social Security and Medicare — two socialist  government programs — are among the most popular government programs, and they compete for top preference, with two other socialist government programs: veterans’ benefits, and public education. In order from the top down, the most popular to the least popular government programs, as of 2013 (the latest pollings on that), are:

Kaiser Poll:

1:  Public education (which is mainly a local function).

2:  Medicare.

3:  Social Security.

4:  Medicaid.

5:  Health insurance subsidies.

6:  Aid to farmers.

7:  National defense.

8:  Food stamps.

9:  Unemployment insurance (a local function).

10:  Salaries and benefits for federal government workers.

11:  The conflict in Afghanistan.

12:  Foreign aid.

Pew Poll:

1:  Veterans’ benefits.

2:  Social Security.

3:  Education (a local function).

4:  Natural disaster relief.

5:  Food and drug inspection.

6:  Combating crime (a local function).

7:  Medicare. (Medicaid wasn’t even listed.)

8:  Roads and infrastructure (mainly local).

9:  Anti-terrorism defenses.

10:  Agriculture.

11:  Scientific research.

12:  Energy.

13:  Environmental protection.

14:  Health care.

15:  Aid to needy in U.S.

16:  Military defense.

17:  Unemployment aid (a local function).

18:  State Department.

19:  Aid to world’s needy.

Republicans are socialists, too. They’re just the ones who call themselves ‘rugged individualists.’ They are the ‘rugged individualist’ socialists. Sure. Sure.

But it serves the aristocracy, because it’s the aristocrats who (own the drug and hospital companies etc. and so) reap the profits from this system of extracting wealth from the many to go to the few. And that’s why the masses need to be made to believe themselves to be ‘rugged individualists.’

The American people are conned royally.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, General, Media, Politics / World News, propaganda, Science / Technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Tannenhouser

    Not that surprising Considering we are talking about the land of CONfused and CONvoluted.

  • mulga mumblebrain

    The secret to understanding the Rightwing pathopsychology is to remember that they fear and hate other people, and are never happier than when they know that others are suffering. Hence the visceral hatred of the mere idea that health, or anything else, could be a ‘right’.

    • jandr0

      Your conclusion does not follow from your prejudiced premise.

      In other words, you are simply spouting biased nonsense.

      • mulga mumblebrain

        ‘But it does Blanche- it does!’ The US ‘healthcare’ system, if nothing else, proves it.

        • jandr0

          [‘But it does Blanche- it does!’ The US ‘healthcare’ system, if nothing else, proves it.]

          Oh, good grief. The US ‘healthcare’ system does not “prove” any of the biased nonsense you spouted.

          • mulga mumblebrain

            That’s why emergency health teams, that usually work in war zones and failed states, get so much work when visiting the great and glorious US of A. People who have all their rotten teeth pulled out (even children) or are past saving with diseases that could have been treated if seen earlier. All because the USA sends its burgeoning underclass straight down the pit of Hell, without concern, compassion or empathy. But I guess you’re doing OK, so stuff the moochers, eh?

          • jandr0

            [That’s why emergency health …. compassion or empathy.]

            My apologies, but I could not find a rational, evidence-based cause and effect argument in that extract to respond to.

            [But I guess you’re doing OK, so stuff the moochers, eh?]

            Personally, I guess I am surviving. For sure, I could (and would like to) be a helluva lot better off, but on the other hand, things could also be worse.

            As to “moochers,” that is, people who are supported by or seek support from another WITHOUT MAKING AN ADEQUATE RETURN (Merriam-Webster definition): Yes, they do need to be “stuffed” (professional parasites are not to be equated with people that have honestly fallen on hard times and deserve voluntary compassion and assistance).

          • mulga mumblebrain

            Thank-you for the revelations concerning your character, and your trade-mark lack of empathy and compassion for others suffering as the ‘collateral damage’ of Free Market capitalism.

          • jandr0

            You don’t know me. You have ZERO knowledge of how much empathy and compassion I have for other people, or of how much I (and many other supposedly “evil” free-market capitalists) have done to assist people in need.

            Well done on demonstating your false, childish, divisive stereotyping and labelling.

  • jandr0

    [And, by contrast, capitalists believe that if you get into a traffic accident or get a dread disease and need medicines that cost $300,000 per year, and maybe expensive surgery, etc., and you can’t afford that, you should just die — tough luck, you’re not ‘worth’ the cost, but any billionaire automatically would be worth it.]

    This utterly false representation is proof again that Eric Zuesse is a deceitful hypocrite using slanted propaganda tactics to demonise anybody he does not like.

    Eric Zuesse is a wannabe totalitarian dictator hiding in “I care about people” sheep’s clothing.

    • cettel

      That’s ad-hominem, not ad-rem.

      • jandr0

        While I agree with you that Eric Zuesse’s comment is ad hominem, he does “use” his ad hominem as a false support for his “argument” (so it can technically be considered ad rem, though false).