I’m going to go with NO on this.

Can we include supplemental insurance for some things, mostly boutique care? Sure. Should providers have the right to opt out of a M4A system? Sure.

Your statements are vague and seem very preferential toward corporate profit. Incremental change, meaning no change at all.

Who decides what is financially ruinous? Who decides who can afford how much to spend as a “fair share”?

We live under a system where legislation is literally written by corporations and signed into law by politicians who receive massive “donations” (sic) by the same corporations and industries with no regard to human well-being. The ACA was allegedly supposed to accomplish what you are saying. Did it accomplish that? No, it did not. Yet that seems to be exactly what you are promoting.

If you really want to examine the subject, then you have to do a lot more than merely compare one system with another. Especially when some of the systems you use as a comparison are being dismantled by capitalist interests as we speak. You have to look at not just healthcare but healthcare as an integral part of the overall economy.

Take a closer look at what M4A would really do.

Written by

Issues unite, names divide

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store