4 ms·

You are misinterpreting the text of the bill you keep quoting. As well as equating the notion of Medicare For All as a policy with one attempt to pass it that f

• Aurornis 3y ago
  > You are misinterpreting the text of the bill you keep quoting. I don't think I am. You haven't provided any specifics and your claims above were easily disproven, so I'm not sure what you think I'm doing wrong. > As well as equating the notion of Medicare For All as a policy with one attempt to pass it that failed. See above: My parent comment was specifically talking about the Medicare for All bill. You are the one trying to substitute a different concept into the discussion. > While sure, providers could choose to not accept Medicare This is the exact opposite of what you claimed two comments up. This discussion is a perfect example of what I'm talking about: When it comes to these discussions, people like to substitute their own facts and pretend like we can just ignore the reality of of what goes into bills. Once you start looking at actual legislation these things aren't as popular as people think because it doesn't match their imaginary ideal. Hence my original point: Politicians have an incentive to keep these concepts as far from reality as possible, because it allows people to cling to their own idealized versions of what it would look like. The closer you get to reality, the more people realize that tradeoffs and compromise are necessary in the real world.