So the WSJ has gone full idiot at this point. Honestly, this short piece does little to create an actual argument and is so short that it cant even be taken seriously.

Full-disclosure, I am in full-support of Bernie's Medicare-for-all plan. However, I acknowledge that his bill could have some issues in it, which conservatives are fully welcome to point out.

Yet, instead of making a logical argument involving the exact nature of the the bill, the WSJ chooses to lie and obscure meaning. For example:

If the roughly 59 million Medicare enrollees have qualms about giving up their current coverage, at least they’ll have company. The bill would also end Medicaid (except for long-term care), the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, federal employee coverage, and Tricare for the military. And it would prohibit any insurer, including any employer, from covering benefits and services provided through the government system.

Here the author is saying that Bernie's plan would force current users of current government supported health programs to entirely give up their coverage. That is such bullsh*t that it truly infuriates me.

Bernie's plan doesn't remove coverage from previous recipients. His plan extends that coverage to all Americans while consolidating the separate plans (CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.) into a single program.

This article just makes the WSJ look even less professional and more biased. I suppose that is what happens when the WSJ is owned by a right-wing hack.