1) I'm just going to say it: this debate about whether Warren would raise taxes to fund Medicare for All is redundant. It's obvious & besides the point. Of course that's how universal health care is funded. But refusing to say it is a case of reframing the issue, not avoiding it.
2) By using that tactic Warren denies people like me & her opponents the sugar hit, gotcha moment, where we can all say "taxes will go up." But any sentinent person realises that already, so why would she give her opponents the open goal, letting them frame the debate their way?
3) You wouldn't either, so really it's just smart politics. She can have that more detailed debate later in 2020 if she wins the nomination.
4) As someone who lived 39 yrs in countries with universal health care, the 2 key factors are really overall end cost to you as individual, and overall cost to your country: it matters less which line of your pay check the cost is attributed to, it's all deducted at same time
5) What really is crazy is how no Democrat candidate seems to be able to explain how a safety net (Medicare) can co-exist with private insurance (which is, in effect, supplementary insurance in countries with Medicare for All)
6) In Australia for example, your private insurance is for things like preventative actions (ex. gym membership), complementary therapy (ex. osteo), elective surgery, or having a private rather than shared room during a hospital stay. It's not for primary treatment
7) There's not really any need to ban that, especially when it's often just a way to nudge people to take better care of themselves, instead of spending that money on a new TV or whatever.
8) Private insurance in countries like UK or Australia isn't something just for rich people. It's encouraged for all. My parents, far from rich, use it to invest in themselves, while expecting good public care for big things at same time (One has a cancer, the other emphysema)
