Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. > It's the fact that you need to buy a medigap plan that is exactly the problem. Those plans are not available to

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. > It's the fact that you need to buy a medigap plan that is exactly the problem. Those plans are not available to everyone. I’m not sure I understand this comment. There is a guaranteed issuance period after you become eligible for Medicare. Several states also either have permanent guaranteed issuance periods, or annual guaranteed issuance enrolment periods. What do you mean when you say the plans are not available to everyone? > And you have to buy private insurance to fix what the government doesn't do right. Sure, but supplemental insurance exists in Canada and the UK too, even though those care systems are quite good. Most people don’t need it because the basic services are comprehensive and reasonable. A Medicare for All plan just needs to offer the same level of service that you see in other universal health care systems. > Medicare for all is not a good plan. There are multiple plans that are described as “Medicare for All”. Which specific version of this concept do you think is bad? Why? > Leave it as private insurers, but let the government give every family an allowance to help pay for it or even pay for it entirely. The main thing I don’t understand about this approach is where cost savings and improved patient experience are supposed to come from. Having multiple insurers means that all the billing and administrative overhead costs continue to exist. Insurers will demand a profit margin on top of the actual cost of providing services. We’ll still have the restricted networks and copays and coinsurances and denials and appeals and prior authorisations and formulary exceptions and annual enrolments that make navigating care in the U.S. a nightmare. Can you explain how you think these problems would be mitigated under a “Medicare Advantage for All” type system?