[arcticbull]

At this point much of your argument has devolved into Gish gallop, so let's take a step back.

If private cover is so good - so clearly superior - would you advocate for eliminating Medicare and Medicaid? If not, why not? Why is socialized medicine the bees knees once you turn 65 but utterly unworkable if you're younger? Why do 75% of those covered by Medicare think the system is working very well - significantly more than those with private cover - and why would that not extend to everyone?

[b9a2cab5]

My argument is simple: Medicare for All entails higher taxes on high earners, which stunts wealth building and economic mobility, especially for high earners who grew up in poverty. This can be easily seen by comparing, for example, salaries of software engineers in Europe and the United States. Medicare and Medicaid are intended to take care of those that _can't work_, but Medicare for All is intended to take care of people that _choose not to work in a higher paying field they dislike_.

> private cover is so good

I would pay for a single payer option if everyone paid a flat fee for insurance that wasn't income based. I'm against the income redistribution part of Medicare for All, for aforementioned reasons.

> Why do 75% of those covered by Medicare think the system is working very well

Once again, polls are incredibly misleading and dependent on the wording used in the survey. You need only look at surveys of Obamacare vs. the ACA to see this effect.

You continually try to engage in asking the same questions by claiming to not understand all the statistics I've given you and I don't believe you're conversing in good faith anymore. Goodbye.

[arcticbull]

> My argument is simple: Medicare for All entails higher taxes on high earners, which stunts wealth building and economic mobility, especially for high earners who grew up in poverty.

This is an absolutely tiny fraction because most poor people can't afford the healthcare necessary to actually thrive in the economy. Ditto the education. What we need is equality of opportunity, and that requires social services.

> I'm against the income redistribution part of Medicare for All, for aforementioned reasons.

I'm completely uninterested in this. Unless tied to income it's a regressive tax that punishes the poor disproportionately along the axis of marginal utility of money.

> Once again, polls are incredibly misleading and dependent on the wording used in the survey. You need only look at surveys of Obamacare vs. the ACA to see this effect.

This is a different subject and so not relevant. Everyone knows what Medicare is. The only thing most right-wingers know about Obamacare is that Obama created Obamacare. Really it's more like Romneycare for All as it's essentially a Republican policy. There's not a single left-leaning thing about making every individual pay a private company for healthcare. You're not showing a skew in reality, just marketing.

I suspect Americans would feel differently if they knew that Obamacare single handedly dropped the rate of people dying from lack of cover by almost 50% per annum.

> You continually try to engage in asking the same questions by claiming to not understand all the statistics I've given you and I don't believe you're conversing in good faith anymore. Goodbye.

Respectfully disagree. I've successfully refuted every concrete point you've made up to and including whether "the left can pass such a bill" and whether you really need cataract surgery tomorrow.

I wish you the best. Medicare for all is coming. It's just a matter of time.

However, you have failed to answer my core question. Do you think that Medicare should be abolished? Should Medicaid? If so, why? And in what concrete ways do you think that would make America a better place? More efficient? And why is 65 the magic age at which "socialism" finally starts to make sense?

[b9a2cab5]

According to your profile, you're not even a U.S. citizen, how can you purport to understand anything in the U.S. when you don't vote here? When you repeatedly post in favor of one political slant as a foreign national that's no different from Russian troll farms getting paid 50 cents a post to spam politics online.

> I'm completely uninterested in this. Unless tied to income it's a regressive tax that punishes the poor disproportionately along the axis of marginal utility of money.

Nobody asked your opinion. I was simply stating mine.

> However, you have failed to answer my core question

I don't feel a need to prove to you I've answered anything. Like I said, you are conversing in bad faith.

> Medicare for all is coming

Is that why Democrats lost elections in swing states in 2021 by double digit shifts compared to 2020?