Medicaid is sadly less popular then Medicare because Americans don't sympathize with the poor / don't think they'll be poor while they know they'll eventually be old and need Medicare.

Medicaid has way too many restrictions applied against coverage. You basically have to be poor, in order to qualify for coverage.

Medicare doesn't have those restrictions. It's basically just age-related...so expanding it just means making the same coverage available to more age-brackets.

A lot more doctors accept Medicare than accept Medicaid, so treatments are easier to access and outcomes are better.

Where's the contradiction? Do you really think it's a better strategy to put off larger reforms and focus on only preventing regressives from making things even worse?

I'm not sure what you're point is. Fully socialized medical care would be better, but Medicare for all is a good first step, and would involve reversing any damage currently being done.

Cognitive dissonance at a national scale