Steve CoxKonto zweryfikowane

Nobody is siding with profiteering. Most of Western Europe does NOT utilize single-payer, but ALL of Western Europe has everybody covered (i.e. "Universal") for around 12% of GDP or less. As I said in my first post about this, single-payer *might* be the answer.

I understand that. I am just clarifying the reason our drug prices are high. I would be happy with any form of universal care over what we do now. Med for All is more workable since we have mechanisms already in place.

Right. But it's not good enough. Compromising on moral or ethical issues is itself a moral problem. Healthcare is a right. Denying rights because of income is wrong. We need to do this right, because if we do, it'll work. And if it works, it will last.

Listen to yourself, Steve. You're saying we should completely scrap our entire healthcare system and not utilize the infrastructure we have in place to ensure everyone can be covered for their basic needs with a reduction of hundreds of $ billions per year in cost.

If that's what it takes to get it right, then that's what it takes. I'm not saying that's what it *will* take. I'm saying we need to do it right.

Then what we need to do is follow the polling and utilize the infrastructure we have in place to provide Medicare-for-all, then build on that. Your proposition is not only infeasible, it's not what the American people want right now.

Providing every man, woman, and child life-saving healthcare at an affordable price isn't "incrementalism" - it's a major leap ahead from even the embattled ACA. What you're proposing simply will not fly in any state until the Medicare foundation is solidified.

Affordable? 18% of GDP is not "affordable".