You call for Medicare For All, demand a drastic overhaul of our healthcare system, and attack the public option as a roadblock to MFA, all without thinking about the vast majority of Americans most of whom do receive good to excellent healthcare under the current system. How do you ensure you don’t make their lives worse in the transition to your plan? You wrote:
A system like Bernie’s Medicare for All, or some other form of single payer, is the only way to ensure that people aren’t dying simply because they can’t afford health insurance. A public option is frankly a waste of time, and just yet another roadblock to an overhaul of the system that we desperately need.
However, between employer provided healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, individual healthcare insurance, and other programs, the current system does provide at least 280 million people some of the best healthcare available and it also the system that has produced the most dramatic improvements in healthcare.
To the over 150 million covered by employer based healthcare, your overhaul means taking away their existing coverage and replacing it with what exactly?
To the 60 million on Medicare, your overhaul threatens the system they rely on. It is perennially in a financial crisis. Throwing in 5 times as many people could well overwhelm the system and lead to major shortages and dislocations.
Then let’s not forget about the 70 million enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP.
Does MFA mean the end of Medicaid and CHIP?
You write as if you can snap your fingers and, voila, a complete overhaul is done. It’s not that easy. You can take a system that has a lot of problems and make it much worse for millions if you go about it the wrong way. Basically, these MFA plans scare people, especially when the plan designers pay zero thought to the transition. A public option may not work in the long run, but in the short run it doesn’t take away anybody’s coverage.
Finally you did not mention what would drive innovation under MFA. How do we make healthcare better?