New poll: health care is top issue; majority support for Medicare for All

[Nyvin]

This is another example of why true Democracies don't work. A majority of people want something because it's "free" but they don't consider the consequences.

I don't get the point?

They would also be the majority of those bearing the consequences, so, what are you saying?

If 80% of people vote for something, it is their right to self-determination, so how could anyone justify sacrificing the rights of the 80% for the remaining 20%?

the 80% would not be funding this endeavor, just reaping benefits. also america is fundamentally more individualistic than europe, looking at it as a view into the past is a flawed view

This is an overly simple viewpoint of it though.   Just because 20% of the country would pay for the majority of the system doesn't mean they won't benefit from it in other ways.  Their companies would no longer need to fund employee health plans anymore and they'd benefit from an overall healthier workforce.  

Besides - If Republicans are "Pro-Life" as they say, what about this?

https://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-medicaid-expansion-maternal-infant-mortality.html?fbclid=IwAR3iKtA8X6LxM8LqLW7bYc-HlCB3w1JpLAaKpL01knSK-AC5EZM6QAovk-A

Fourteen states have not expanded Medicaid, and the result can be deadly: States that expanded Medicaid saw a reduction in infant mortality -- from 5.9 to 5.6 deaths per 100,000, while the rate slighty rose in nonexpansion states -- from 6.4 to 6.5 deaths per 100,000.

[Omega21]

This is another example of why true Democracies don't work. A majority of people want something because it's "free" but they don't consider the consequences.

I don't get the point?

They would also be the majority of those bearing the consequences, so, what are you saying?

If 80% of people vote for something, it is their right to self-determination, so how could anyone justify sacrificing the rights of the 80% for the remaining 20%?

the 80% would not be funding this endeavor, just reaping benefits. also america is fundamentally more individualistic than europe, looking at it as a view into the past is a flawed view

This form of healthcare is flawed. The United States has the highest population of any country in the developed world. It also has the least healthy people in the developed world. Saying "it works in Europe" doesn't mean it will work here due to the reasons stated earlier. Universal healthcare is too costly and prohibits the free market from offering solutions.

I did not say that it isn't flawed, I was talking about the "true democracy" you mentioned, i.e. direct democracy.

The point is not if it is a good system or not, my question to you was what is your argument against direct democracy? What justifies ignoring the will of a large majority?

[Nyvin]

This is another example of why true Democracies don't work. A majority of people want something because it's "free" but they don't consider the consequences.

I don't get the point?

They would also be the majority of those bearing the consequences, so, what are you saying?

If 80% of people vote for something, it is their right to self-determination, so how could anyone justify sacrificing the rights of the 80% for the remaining 20%?

the 80% would not be funding this endeavor, just reaping benefits. also america is fundamentally more individualistic than europe, looking at it as a view into the past is a flawed view

This form of healthcare is flawed. The United States has the highest population of any country in the developed world. It also has the least healthy people in the developed world. Saying "it works in Europe" doesn't mean it will work here due to the reasons stated earlier. Universal healthcare is too costly and prohibits the free market from offering solutions.

I did not say that it isn't flawed, I was talking about the "true democracy" you mentioned, i.e. direct democracy.

The point is not if it is a good system or not, my question to you was what is your argument against direct democracy? What justifies ignoring the will of a large majority?

A large majority can oppress the minority. This is also known as mob rule. Just because a majority of people think something is right, doesn't mean it is. In fact, there are many things that the majority is not right about such as abortion, and gun control. A true democracy where majority rules wouldn't allow the minority to share their views or policies.

Why is the minority more ethical than the majority then?  What good does it actually do to give them an advantage?