LogFAQs > #930547828

xp1337 posted...

People do prefer the public option method to single-payer when it comes to achieving universal healthcare coverage - that is true! I do think that's a fact the left has to reckon with, much as it disappoints me that the situation is what it is.

However, I don't think that precludes being irritated that Buttigieg (and others, but he's gone hard on this angle) is using right-wing talking points like "kicking 140 million people off of their healthcare" and "it's anti-freedom."

Admittedly I'm biased since I'm sympathetic to single-payer here but I think the most logical attack angle is to point out that politically it is a tough to sell to tell people they will be switched to a new healthcare plan - that that change can be scary to them. Or complain about the cost and get into that debate. "kicking people off their healthcare" is the "soundbite" version of it but with a far more negative connotation and I know why it's used but the implication is that you're knocking these people off insurance and then just stranding them which is BS and they know it.

It's incorrect to say that you're throwing them off of insurance, but it's correct to state that you're telling them to give up insurance that they're familiar with in order for it to be replaced with something that you claim will be better. The question is then whether they trust you to deliver on that promise (which is a function not only of your intentions, but also of the competence of your implementation, and how robust the public plan is to sabotage*). In other words, you're asking people to take a big risk with something very important, and it's not a good idea to handwave that away as manufactured.

*What I'm thinking of here is sabotage when the GOP controls Congress. In particular, I think it's very likely that they would refuse to allow M4A to fund abortion.

---

Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge!