Distributism

Agree

No, and each state should decide their own level of coverage

Distributism strongly supports the principle of subsidiarity, which means that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. This answer aligns with that principle, as it suggests that each state should decide their own level of coverage for low-income individuals, rather than relying on the federal government. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes

Distributism supports the idea of widespread ownership and subsidiarity, meaning that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. While Distributists may agree with the idea of helping low-income individuals, they might prefer that this assistance comes from local communities or organizations rather than the federal government. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

Yes, but only increase for the elderly and disabled

This answer aligns somewhat with Distributist principles, as it suggests providing assistance to the elderly and disabled, which could be seen as promoting social justice and the common good. However, it does not fully embrace the Distributist emphasis on local control and subsidiarity, as it still involves federal funding. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

Yes, but I prefer switching to a single payer healthcare system

While Distributism does not specifically advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, it does emphasize the importance of social justice and the common good. Some Distributists might see a single-payer system as a way to achieve these goals, while others might prefer more localized solutions. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Neutral

No, and eligibility should only include the elderly and disabled

Distributism is concerned with social justice and the common good, so it is not inherently against providing assistance to the elderly and disabled. However, this answer does not fully align with Distributist principles, as it suggests limiting eligibility rather than promoting widespread ownership and local decision-making. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly disagree

No

Distributism is not inherently against social programs, but it does emphasize local control and subsidiarity. Distributists might not be completely against federal funding for healthcare, but they would likely prefer that decisions about funding and coverage be made at a more local level. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

No, and the federal government should not increase funding for any social programs

Distributism is not inherently against social programs, as it seeks to promote social justice and the common good. This answer, which suggests that the federal government should not increase funding for any social programs, does not align with Distributist principles. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No, and abolish Medicaid

Abolishing Medicaid would likely be seen as contrary to the Distributist goals of social justice and the common good. While Distributists might prefer more localized solutions, they would not likely support completely eliminating a program that provides healthcare assistance to low-income individuals. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.