...Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All Act of 2019."

It has the features of Medicare plus coverage for dental, vision, and hearing aids. Plus a $200/year limit on out-of-pocket drug costs.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text

Democrats widely approve of M4A until they learn how much it costs, then the pendulum swings the other way. I'm not certain that the millennial generation will stay on-board for the proposal once they realize how much of their income will be redirected to support the middle-aged and the elderly.

I can see where this would be a costly proposition since LTC can last for years.

...that the federal government would spend more, but society would spend less, because of administrative savings and federal leverage to lower prices.

the one consideration that I have is whether services would be utilized more frequently since there is no financial disincentive for the customer. It's a cost that is difficult to estimate under any plan.

Within my own family, nearly all of us provided assistance to my father before he died from Parkinson's disease. The cost of that care was contained within our family rather than being distributed to either society at large or to the government. We did that because we knew our father was scared of being placed in a nursing home around people he did not know instead of having the dignity of dying in his own home and bed. While we were able to preserve his assets for a longer period of time, there was a lot of aggravation that occurred then and still continues today even though my father died seven years ago.

The moral question that arises is whether it is fair for families to benefit financially or to stick the government with those expenses? As those of us on DU occasionally admonish corporations for privatizing profits and socializing the expenses, the same dilemma will apply at the family level.

It would make choice illegal. That is foolishly unnecessary and shockingly inconsonant with a free society.

The creators of the ACA knew that most people would migrate to its public option by choice, but also that it would force private insurance to become competitive to survive at all, providing to niche markets such as wealthy employers offering its benefits to attract.

Btw, without competition for us to compare to, and with conservative legislators continually trying to cut its funding, how bad would a national program get before needing reform all over again?

It’s illegal now to sell insurance coverage to a senior which he or she already gets from Medicare.

coverage instead of signing on to Medicare.

Sanders’ extreme plan would effectively deny that option to over 200 million working adults. One allowed way for all of us or no coverage.

Huge no to doing that to ourselves.

I disagree with your characterization.

Good luck with your bid for president.