Ok. You got me. You're just trolling by saying the same idiotic thing over and over. Bravo. I was definitely getting riled up there for a second. 

But we agree those countries pay less for health care than we do in the US, right? I just want to make sure you’re admitting that is true.

“However in practice, no they don’t because you will resign.”

Do you not get that the “13 figures” are already being spent and we’d just be redirecting where the money is coming from plus or minus some amount depending on “modeled assumptions”? You seem to think Medicare For All is some additional spending in the trillions of dollars. I just want to make sure we’re on the same…

Ok, theoretically, but based on academic analysis, international examples, and already existing national programs, Medicare For All will cost less. Just like the statement “the sun will rise tomorrow morning” is also only theoretically true but based on a shitload of empirical evidence and analytical modeling.

So? The amount they spend on health care, overall, as a percentage of their GDP is lower. Thus, “they pay less for health care than we do in the US.”

“That’s why an employer can change benefits without your consent anytime they like but cannot change your pay.”

I mean, in the way that any proposal to change anything going forward uses some “modeled assumptions”. But the main claim for why costs will decrease, the decrease in the rate providers will receive from the single government payer, is not an assumption. It’s a number in the legislation which can be “modeled” using…

Totally. That’s why countries with a much higher amount of government involvement in health care pay less for health care than we do in the US. You understand your libertarian beliefs aren’t actually facts, right? I get you have a theological belief about government. But luckily, it doesn’t comport to reality any more…

Unless you are a very high earning individual, that’s very unlikely. Do you take in to account the amount your employer pays for your health care which is effectively “your” money being used for health care instead of wages or other benefits?

Yes. Voters care about personal costs. Which is why it’s good the costs the voters will bear under Medicare For All, for example, will be less than the costs they currently personally bear. The argument against M4A is the federal government will bear more of the costs. The voter doesn’t care how those costs are…

No, not under modeled “assumptions”. Under specifics taken from a proposal introduced in the Senate.

No, it’s Obama who had the bad faith take. Because all of the policy proposals have been introduced with accompanying ideas about possible funding sources. So he’s either warning about something they’ve already been doing or he’s implying the current proposals aren’t good enough for some reason. Which one do you think…

We got wiped out defending a small bore plan that didn’t impact most people (so they believed any lie about it because how would they know what actually happened), hurt a relatively large group of politically active people (the middle class who got no tax credit and saw their premiums, deductibles, etc. skyrocket),…

That’s why you don’t need to jack up taxes immediately. You pay for the up front costs with debt or seignorage and gradually raise taxes from the top on down in a politically bearable way. You know, the way republicans do all their spending on tax cuts, wars, corporate handouts, etc. Since no one cares about “the…

The amount you will spend on health care, all inclusive, will go down. That includes all the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles you currently pay yourself or through lower wages when they’re paid by your employer.

I know, right? And under his tenure the Democratic party only lost a record number federal and state elected offices. That’s winning we can all get behind! Plus, since he followed his own advice by focusing on “paying for” programs (making them smaller, narrower, and less generous) and deficit reduction (by cutting…

What are you talking about? Medicare For All costs less than our current system. How can spending less on health care be something that “hasn’t been really tested thoroughly in the American economy”? That makes no sense.

You’re not going anywhere. You clearly get off on being the most self righteous and Very Serious Adult In The Room.

Adults only need to be Very Serious about how to pay for programs which help Americans. Programs which involve killing goat herders and women with multi-million dollar munitions fired from unmanned drones don’t need no stinkin’ pay fors.