Public Option is better than Medicare for all

[Goodheart]

15. That's a really bad analysis.

"Anyone can buy into".... oh yeah? Since when? How much will that public option cost? As it stands, even now after the ACA's subsidies ten million people don't have insurance because they can't afford it.

I don't think any of the candidates have said you wouldn't be able to buy private health insurance under Medicare for All. You think you can afford something better than free medical care? GO FOR IT! Who's going to stop you when nobody intends to make it criminal? In the meantime, under Medicare for All EVERYBODY is covered automatically, unlike today when millions of people can't afford it.

Yes, Medicare for All would raise taxes. SO BLOODY WHAT when at the same time it would reduce medical costs by a far greater amount. Don't believe it? Just look at the entire rest of the world for proof.... we pay TWICE as much as anybody else, even when their taxes are included, and rank about 40th in the world in actual health care. Want to know why? Because our health insurance "system" is designed for private profits, not for providing health care.

And even your conclusion doesn't follow from your own faulty premises. "More practical and fair" is a non sequitur. What's ACTUALLY practical is reduced cost and what's ACTUALLY fair is coverage for EVERYBODY.

Here's how your last sentence SHOULD read:

Giving people the option to buy PRIVATE INSURANCE on top of/in place of their Medicare coverage is practical and fair, and their overall cost will be lower even after paying more Medicare taxes.

Want an example to know that MY sentence is true? Try Australia, for one.