Again: He’s correct about the difference of opinion about what it means, but he’s wrong about how he’s presented his own interpretation of the term. There’s been two schools of thought for a long time now, and he failed to make his clear until this year. That’s fine, but OWN IT.
Some think it means mandatory for all; some think it means optional for some.
Some think it means today’s Medicare (non comprehensive); some think it means comprehensive coverage.
Some think it means the option of private management; some think it’d be 100% publicly managed.
Some think it means today’s Medicare (non comprehensive); some think it means comprehensive coverage.
Some think it means the option of private management; some think it’d be 100% publicly managed.
And some think it’d mean some level of premiums/copays/deductibles; some think it wouldn’t have any of those & this would be 100% “pure” single payer.
Current Medicare isn’t comprehensive, has a private management option and includes prem/deduct/copays, so it’s understandable.
Current Medicare isn’t comprehensive, has a private management option and includes prem/deduct/copays, so it’s understandable.
