In-depth exposure to both sides' arguments reduces support for "Medicare For All"

Just listened to the latter part of an Intelligence Squared debate on the following question:

Replace private insurance with Medicare For All?

  Intelligence Squared debates feature two debaters arguing for a proposition, and two arguing against. Audience members are polled before and afterward on whether they agree with the proposal, with audience members given an opportunity to ask questions of the debaters before their concluding statements and the final vote.

  In this debate, the initial poll found 36% of the audience members in favor and 35% opposed, with 29% undecided. After the debate, those numbers had shifted to 40% in favor, but 51% opposed.

  These results suggest that when people hear detailed and well-articulated arguments for both sides from experts or people well-versed on the topic, expanding government control of health care under a "single payer" approach tends to become less appealing.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))