"At no cost to every kid under the age of 18 and anybody making at or below 200% of the federal poverty level"
It isn't really worth explaining to you over and over again, since you seem pretty committed to not understanding what Medicare For All actually means, but to anyone else reading this thread: A Medicare For All plan means extending Medicare Title 19 to everyone with US citizenship. The reason this works is because it creates a single payer system that forcing private drug companies to negotiate with a single, organized bloc of customers. This is why insulin costs $35 in Canada and around $500 in the United States.
Warren's plan does not extend Title 19. Instead, she creates a separate plan that only covers children and the poor. Which is fine, but does not create any system of bargaining power to ensure that drug prices are lowered, does not cover anyone who makes more than 51k but lives in an area where even those wages make healthcare prohibitively expensive (eg, every major city in this country), and doesn't prevent states from limiting Medicaid expansion. She also does not abolish private insurance, and instead creates an "opt in" system that guarantees that private insurance provided by employers remain functioning, thus allowing drug companies to sell to the highest bidder rather than sell to the US government or sell to no one at all.
She calls it Medicare For All despite it having absolutely nothing to do with Medicare because she understands that the phrase itself is popular, and that people who don't actually understand or listen to her policy proposals will support it regardless of how ineffective it is. Like you.
Nice emoji though.
Again we see you shifting goalposts. The issue at the center of our discussion hasn't been whether the first step in Warren's transition plan is full M4A or identical to Bernie's plan. She herself says it's not as much over and over again in her plan. The issue is whether Warren is committed to the concept of M4A (she is, as evidenced by the tweets) and whether Warren's plan, in your words, "extend Medicare benefits to anyone" (it does, to 135 million people, as evidenced by the plan). If you'd like to argue about expanding Title 19 to the entire population and eradicating private insurance, you're more than welcome to join the extended conversation some of us have been having for months. To catch you up to speed, I believe those provisions are poison pills in our current congressional landscape and doom any bill with them inside to failure. Others believe Bernie Sanders can conjure up the revolutionary magic needed to oust the vast majority of Republican and Democrat lawmakers that currently stand in the way of full M4A. Bernie wants to fight a bear hand-to-hand, Warren wants to poison it. Bernie wants to smash down a reinforced concrete door with a sledgehammer, Warren wants to pick the lock and turn the handle.
So while you're totally incorrect about Warren's plan having "absolutely nothing to do with Medicare" and just repping the policy for clout, you're correct in that Bernie and Warren absolutely do not have the same strategy on getting to M4A. Bernie's one is operating on assumptions I personally find ridiculous, which is why I think Warren and her strategy is the best vehicle to actually achieve M4A. You're more than welcome to assume the opposite and support Bernie's strategy, but from my perspective, the problem you have here is one that is quite prevalent amongst Bernie's most committed fans. Instead of looking at him as one potential vehicle of the progressive movement, you seem to believe he
is the progressive movement. So any alternative to his vision is necessarily anti-progressive. I have no special attachment to Bernie, I just care about creating actual progressive change. I have no special attachment to Bernie's particular M4A bill, I care about enacting single-payer, universal healthcare.
