There are a lot of reasons to be wary about a Medicare for All plan:
1. The cost... people will point out that total healthcare spending is projected to go down, but it's not so simple to "move" the money that's spent in the private market today into government coffers to spend on M4A. It's logistically difficult but moreso it's politically difficult. People don't like taxes more than they don't like paying their employer for a benefit. There will also be people who pay more in this new tax than they paid on their old employer plan, they won't be happy either.
2. A main reason that overall costs would be projected to be lower is that Medicare has WAY lower reimbursement rates for providers. M4A basically represents a mass defunding of hospitals and providers. If you look at healthcare professions in other countries they are all paid way less. Big salary cuts for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, x ray techs... you get the idea... is not going to be popular. But you're forcing hospitals to take massive revenue cuts with these reimbursement rates so what else is there to do, labor is their largest expense.
3. Complete government control of what is and isn't covered, how everything is administered, etc. It's Sarah Palin's "death panels" but real this time lol. Obviously we have a ton of people on government plans already, and government run healthcare is fine if it's run by competent people who want to see it succeed and know what they are doing.
The problem is that our country has a political party hell bent on making public goods and services worse and now they're full of cranks and kooks like RFK. I would much rather a system with private insurers where I can shop around vs. being forced onto a government plan run by a nutjob.
4. Most people like their current insurance plan, most people are covered by insurance, and we don't need to do this massive disruption to the system to cover the people who are currently uninsured. We can expand the safety net, offer a public option, lower the age to buy into Medicare, etc. There are plenty of "boring" reforms that would accomplish the goal of universal healthcare, they're just not as flashy or sexy as Medicare for All so a lot of people don't care because it's not actually about healthcare for them, it's about politics.
Trans voter to @AOC: Trans people in America feel like they've been abandoned by the Democratic Party, that we are a losing issue, that it's not worth defending us. What do you say to that?
AOC:
@YourLogan9 I don’t think you want to get into a fatuglyretard competition when the topic is trans people.
Lots of women don’t want to be put in a position where they’re expected to change around males. That’s correct.
Good thing that’s not what I advocated for then.
Something is not good policy just because trans people demand it. They’re asking for something that is in conflict with other people’s rights and so there must be a balance struck between interest groups.
You just don’t care about the rights of (actual) women.
@BeshearStan@PollTracker2024 What's hard to understand about the logic here? The better El-Sayed does, the more progressives will point to his performance as a future path forward for the party.
@d78930305@kevinspears126@AugustCohen4 The rational basis is that we separate some areas of society based on sex, and trans people are not the sex they identify as.
You can disagree, but it's certainly not irrational.
HRT does not eliminate all of the advantages from the male sex. It does not reduce lung capacity as just one of many examples.
This is just a bad faith defense that you guys trot out because you were able to get some sports leagues to accommodate trans women.
As for the rights, women have fought for sex-segregated spaces in society. If you want to now allow males into those spaces, then you are taking those rights away. Obviously, you're comfortable with that because you don't give a fuck about sex-segregated spaces, but it's not crazy for women to want those spaces.
the reality is that if someone hates trans people enough they can assault them anywhere. A trans woman could use the women's bathroom and a husband of one of the women inside takes offense and beats the shit out of them.
Just like if I showed you an article about a trans woman who assaulted a woman in the restroom, you wouldn't change your belief on this. These isolated incidents are horrible, but shouldn't exclusively inform policy.
You don't have a human right to play on a female sports team if you're male. That's not a human right, but also yes, compromising on rights is sometimes necessary.
Barack Obama got on stage in 2008 and said that he wasn't against gay marriage, and gay people accepting that and helping him get elected anyway helped bring about his future support and the approval of gay marriage.
Even if you wanted these things that I think are extreme, like sports, you'd think you'd have at least some semblance of strategy on how to get there instead of demanding it immediately when you don't have the public support.