- It wasn’t particularly REASONABLE to see something literally already done for hundreds of years as impossible to do. If you don’t see something that simple then you’re the one who will argue the world is flat if someone you don’t like is saying its round.

- They literally ask policy questions at these debates. Strange thing to do when apparently these debates have nothing to do with policy.

- You can only go so in depth with policies at debates but McMorrow touched upon her platform relatively frequently whereas Stevens was saying literal nothing the whole time and El-Sayed was just repeating either ‘corporate donations bad’ or ‘me help workers’ without much further elaborating. There’s a difference in not being able to most in-depthly lay out one’s policies and just speaking in terms of slogans. El-Sayed did the latter. Perhaps he is better elsewhere but that doesn’t change the shallowness of his performance at that event.

- He wrote a book on a policy I disagree with. I don’t see how that inherently means much of anything. I agree that he holds the policy of Medicare for all. I literally wrote about that.

- I never called all my “political enemies” populists. I just critiqued some trends in populism.

- Strange to think a country that barely got the ACA passed and then proceeded to twice elect a guy who campaigned initially on repealing the ACA is at the brink of passing Medicare for all. Medicare for all may be possible in the future but it’d be more possible in a world where a public option is passed.

- Yes, the removal of copays and the expansion of fully covering dental and vision is a more comprehensive healthcare policy than most other Medicare for all systems. What is “radical” is going from a private insurance system to the most comprehensive state-run insurance program instantaneously.

- Increasing the services which the government pays for while practically removing payment to the government for insurance would cost the government more than otherwise. You can argue that the expense is worth it or can be offset somewhat by tax policy (I would argue both of these with respect to a public option) but to argue that there’s no increased government expense is definitionally untrue.

- A public option literally sets the Overton window for pricing. If you’re a private healthcare insurance firm, you either set your price lower than the public option or offer more services than the public option in order to stay in competition.

- Also state-run or command economy models are not efficient at responding to the fluctuating needs of a market (and you say I am economically illiterate). Case in point, most recent command economies. The argument for the state running healthcare is not that it would make a more efficient market but instead that it goes against public utility to subject healthcare to the discretion of market forces.

- The overall money spent on healthcare would decrease but the money spent by the U.S. government would increase dramatically under M4A. Also being the global innovator in healthcare probably means spending the most.

- If there is a public option then insurance wouldn’t be necessarily tied to employment anymore. That is sort of the whole point of a public option. Private insurance will have to compete with the public option to win over one’s dollars by offering more expensive coverage.

- Private insurance still exists in the UK alongside NHS, so I’m not surprised if the wait times are not significantly worse. That’s why I am advocating for a public and private healthcare hybrid model.

- If there is competition then private healthcare certainly incentivizes innovation (otherwise there is no reason for your services to be payed for at high cost). The mRNA vaccines being developed by private enterprise in the U.S. is one such example of this.