Oh Bigga :) There you go again getting confused as to who's side the burden of proof lies.
Seeing as we don't already have the system, the burden of proof is on those of you "super more intelligent" to explain why we should adopt such a system. Not the other way around..
And for the record " Medicare for All" is a soundbite. Catchy. But not very useful for serious discussion. What is required here is knowledge of the specifics.
But let's start at the beginning: What do you mean by "Medicare for All" what is included and excluded. Who's bill do you favor? And why?
Are you suggesting bill HR 1384 or 2463? Bill S. 1129 or 1261. Or is it one of the less popular ones? They all have similarities and differences. Is any of this even familiar to you?
Are you familiar with what is included/excluded? Do you have a grasp on the fuzzy claims and their meaning? What precisely would be covered? what would doctors be paid? And how would the progra bem be financed?
How will government reign in costs? Prescription drug negotiations? Ok. We got that. What else! Patent period restrictions or removal? Compulsory licensing? How does that play our in 10, 15 or 35 years? Do we have comparable examples? How did they work out.
More immediately, how do we understand the fuzzy terms? What exactly does it mean by "Medically necessary procedures"? Sure, a broken leg applies. But does gender realignment surgery? How about Facelift for the depressed? Where is the line? Who draws it?---- BTW I'm talking about the specific language in H.R. 1384 now. But we can focus on any other of your choosing
We can discuss S. 1129 ( Sanders bill in the Senate) and it's specifics. But any of these discussions will require that you know more than just buzzwords and generic claims..
So if you really want a discussion, it would behoove you to familiarize yourselves with the specifics of the bills at issue and then you can apply your ideology as you see fit in light of those specifics.
Luckily for you, all the 'positives' of the Sander and to a lesser extent Jayapal bills are well highlighted on Sanders Presidential platform. But fair warning, relying on that alone will leave you at a severe disadvantage.
So the floor is yours. What bill in particular and what specifics of "Medicare for All" are you a supporter of?
Let's have at it.
Sorry, occupied by the game and family life.
Okay, well if you're THAT determined to try lengthen out this 'discussion' to a tedious conclusion then we can do that.
Start with the first falsehood you told, you guys DO have the system, it's just in place for the senior community and why it's looking to expand as a roll out to the younger parts of the demographics. And, yes, 'Medicare-for All' IS a soundbite. If you want to get through to a set of people you deliver a message short and sweet as a hook they'll understand.
We can discuss the 2003 HR 676 under Whitfield and its 'adjacent, but-one-step-removed' 2017 Sanders bill HR 1804/ S 1129 and why it's taken so long to get to this point.
I'm not talking about neoliberalists Booker's, Harris' OR O'Rourke's stupid proposals.
Even Hr 1804 has its problems with the roll out time and implementation, but that's because people like yourself think health isn't a Human Right and so it has to be implemented slowly, but surely 'slowly slowly catchy monkey' style.
I can and will 'get into the weeds' with you as I actually have interest in American politics and I have had a copy of Sen. Sanders HR 1804 bill on my PC since 2017.
*I will note, however, the S.1129 only has an amendment to cover the current immigrant situation ( I haven't read all of it and i'm going to have to reacquaint myself with the 2017 bill as well as cover the new amendments.
I'm happy to respond if you want to dig deep, but I will have to do it around a work and family schedule.
Okay?
