No. I think an honest attempt at doing something "radical" economically for the working class can cross the divides we have.
The other problem is that the Democrats don't seem to realize that incremental change doesn't really work when the system of government is messed up like it is. Every little small-ball policy the Dems try to push through can just be undone later by administrative gimmicks as long as we have the level of ambiguity we do about executive power. Beyond that, they can be rolled back by countervailing legislation because the Republicans are focused on gaming the system. "Substantive" radical policies like universal healthcare are unlikely to be achievable without first enacting "procedural" radical policies like anti-gerrymandering rules or abolishing the senate.
Indeed. Because anyone who is numerate enough to do the division quickly realizes that this works out to about $300 per person, and stops being excited about the Wowie Big Number.
Expensive, yes.
I was just pointing to an example of why healthcare reform is politically difficult. One relevant to the ACA was ending discrimination based on preexisting conditions, which caused a majority of people's premiums to go up to subsidize those who are chronically ill. Morally, most people agree it's the right thing to do, but it was politically disastrous since one person gets one vote.
There are plenty of treatments that aren’t subsidized, but it’s not as restricted as it might be perceived. There’s very little whining about things not being covered, because most things are.
Compare the "restriction" section of Ozempic vs metformin. Ozempic is absolutely not allowed to be prescribed as a first resort against type 2 diabetes. Contrast that with a lot of American private insurance, particularly at good employers, where restrictions are much looser. This performative generosity for common treatments, especially trendy ones, is why most people view their private insurance positively, much higher than the state of healthcare in the country.