Bruh, you are the all-time champion defender of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and many other conventional liberals in here. Someone critiques them from the right, you jump to the defense. Someone critiques them from the left, you jump to the defense. So are you lost in the sauce when it comes to all of those folks? Are you the only one with principled positions in here? Are you the only reasonable one? No. And plenty of the shade thrown at Bernie in here is used to simultaneously attack his political vision, so let's not act as if these things are discrete.
I'm not disagreeing that there are lots of specifics to hammer out with M4A. You are a sharp and thoughtful dude who is able to identify a great deal more of these than the average informed. What I'm a little confused about is that you acknowledge M4A is the best option being discussed (we both agree on the ultimate superiority of socialized medicine) but your position seems to be so firmly against it. Instead of even saying "They should do [whatever] instead of [whatever]" to improve the policy and address some of your concerns, you continually berate it. I'm not saying you're obligated to do this, I just don't really understand that dynamic.
Sure, if you want to say I defend liberals a lot in here, find, that's true. I will never deny I am liberal defender #1 in here. But when I make these defenses, do make insane reaches, do I not show my work? And I never said or implied you not make principled arguments or I am the only one in here that does.
Also, everyone you listed, I have probably made harsher criticisms of them than you have ever made of Bernie. You can call me the #1 defender of conventional liberals in here, cool, but I have also provided some of the harshest criticisms. Sure there have probably been more defenses that shade, but I think my scales are more balanced than any Bernie supporter in here are. I don't complain that everyone in here is against Obama and no one else when people start criticizing him.
If it was a perfect world, and we were building an insurance system from scratch, then M4A would probably be the way to go, but we do not live in that world. There are fiscal, political, and economic constraints in place right now.
Speaking just economically, M4A relies mainly on market power to lower healthcare costs. Sure, that is a good thing, but M4A advocates seem to ignore the problems with the healthcare industry. M4A is going to cause capacity issues, so at the end of the day, you have to address the supply issues at hand. There is tons of market consolidation happening in the healthcare industry, with that providers will gain market power and have the leverage to bid up the price of healthcare, and restrict access.
The goal of a single-payer, and what makes it sustainable is for people to consume less, not more, healthcare in the long run. Having an overly generous plan actually does the opposite. It might not happen right away, but you have a situation where is a trip to the doctor is a 4-week wait, and a trip to the emergency room is a 4-hour wait, if they are both the same upfront price, what stops people from just using the emergency room as a clinic. The closest thing to Bernie's proposal is probably Taiwan, and they have exactly this problem.
It needs to be paid for, plain and simple, and it is a massive amount of money. It is a massive restructuring of the tax code. If it is done poorly, there will be economic consequences in regards to who bares what taxes. We can't deficit spend to fund it because, after a little while, we will be borrowing to finance payments on other debt. If we enter a debt crisis, we risk a massive recession, tons of middle-class people hurt, and there will be public pressure to tear apart the system and try something else.
There are self-sabotaging things with what Bernie wants to employ.
The technocratic details are things you want to disregard, but I am very concerned about them. A poorly written plan, no matter the best intentions, can collapse on itself if poorly instituted. And when it does, it opens up a political opportunity for conservatives to ripped it all up.
But at the end of the day, if there is a way to get it passed. Of course they should ******* do it.
www.msnbc.com
youngogjosh
specifically implying M4A was the only way to get to get universal coverage. Like I don't want to complain because I enjoy chopping it up with you, I am just saying that I was if I was making a general point and ignored those things then you criticism would be completely fair, but I was not making a general critique of M4A, I was making a specific point motivated by specific comment by another poster.
Belgium
's informal poll the other day, something like 10% of Warren's overall base seem to be posters in this thread 
