New Poll Shows Majority Of New Jersey Residents Support Expanding Medicare To All

A large majority of New Jerseyans largely support expanding Medicare to provide basic health care coverage to every U.S. resident, regardless of age or employment status, according to a new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll.

According to the poll, 71% of Garden State adults expressed support (51% strongly, 20% somewhat) offering Medicare coverage to everyone in America – even if they are younger than 65 and/or employed.

Currently, the federal government health care plan is open to U.S. residents 65 and older.

The poll also found that 93% of residents who support program expansion would support New Jersey moving ahead with its own program to provide basic health care coverage to
every state resident (68% “strongly,” 25% “somewhat”) if it could be accomplished sooner instead of waiting for the federal government to expand the program.

Interestingly, the poll found that support for Medicare expansion is consistent across race and ethnicity, gender, income level, education, and age.

“Medicare expansion has taken center stage in political and social discourse in recent years,
and New Jerseyans appear amenable to a major shift in health care coverage as we know it,” Jessica Roman, a research associate at Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling, said.

“A solid majority of residents support basic health care coverage for all whether it’s called
Medicare or not,” she added.

Among the roughly 25% of New Jerseyans who said they oppose Medicare expansion, the top reasons residents cite for their opposition include cost (38%), the belief the program should not be universal or should have restrictions (19%), distrust in the government to
handle all health care or the belief the private sector does so better (7%), opposition to socialism (5 percent), and concerns about a decrease in quality (5%).

The poll was conducted via phone with 1,006 New Jersey adults from August 30 to September 8. The margin of error was plus-or-minus 3.8 percentage points.

This content, and any other content on TLS, may not be republished or reproduced without prior permission from TLS. Copying or reproducing our content is both against the law and against Halacha. To inquire about using our content, including videos or photos, email us at [email protected].

Stay up to date with our news alerts by following us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

**Click here to join over 20,000 receiving our Whatsapp Status updates!**

**Click here to join the official TLS WhatsApp Community!**

Got a news tip? Email us at [email protected], Text 415-857-2667, or WhatsApp 609-661-8668.


  1. Even if the state (somehow) had the money for it, it would be a very bad idea to go ahead with it alone, since it would cause many sick people to move to the state and bankrupt the state. It would need to be passed at least in many neighboring states at the same time.

  2. How many of the people supporting it are aware (1)of the costs involved and (2) the difficulties hospitals and other health care providers would face if they are only reimbursed by Medicare rates?

    I’m not against the expansion of Medicare or socialized medicine but I do know that if the two concerns above aren’t addressed first the results will be a disaster waiting to happen.

    • This article discusses a poll. There are no mentions of actual plans or logistics. This is useful because we need to understand what the public thinks, and this can lead to discourse which, in turn, can lead to policy. Of course, any actual legislation will need to deal with funding and the other challenges.

      But as for your points, note that we already pay for healthcare. If it costs less per capita with universal healthcare than the average insurance rate, then we have an equivalent or better value system. And if we keep the system exactly the same as the current insurance system but do not require a profit, it will be a better value and cost less.
      I’ll also point out that the government already pays hospitals for patients who do not have insurance.

      As for your second point of contention, it’s not as though the current system is a walk in the park for doctors and hospitals. Insurance companies have extensive and convoluted reporting and billing protocols. The system is not designed for ease of use but rather to limit payouts. Insurance will not pay for treatment a doctor prescribes if they claim a cheaper alternative is effective. The current system is already difficult. Again, this is a report of a poll, not a discussion of actual legislation. Therefore, there cannot be any data on how hospitals are reimbursed. That said, what a good universal healthcare system promises is to actually pay what is required.

      Of course, by having a universal system, cost savings can be generated through economies of scale. Imagine if the government buys all of a particular drug. The government will have tremendous leverage to control pricing. The government will effectively be a monopoly and the savings will be passed along to taxpayers. And sure, that is worse for the pharmaceutical companies and its stockholders, but it is better for the masses.

      I don’t want this to come across with the “I countered every one of your points and therefore I’m right and you’re wrong” energy. While I think there are valid responses to your argument, in truth there will always be areas where there are pros and cons to any given system. I’m sure there are areas or specific instances where the current insurance model will work better. Therefore, to decide if universal healthcare is a good idea, we must examine all the social and practical contexts in which healthcare is embedded and compare which system overall is best. And I am certainly on the universal healthcare train.

Comments are closed.