Too many seem to happily assume MfA would be some kind of bullet-proof alternative because of, you know, the "Medicare" in the name. It's critical to realize that a conservative court decision snuffing the ACA would be an extremely bad sign for anything we attempted to replace it with.
Also it's critically important to remember that the RW antitax plutocracy the courts are being packed to serve were implacably determined to do away with Medicare itself even before this plan to attach a giant national healthcare system to it.
Politico: ‘Death by a thousand lawsuits’: The legal battles that could dog ‘Medicare for All’
The road to health reform always ends up under a pile of lawsuits. “Medicare for All” would be no different. ... But should it ever become law, it would also invite constitutional challenges. Just like the lawsuits targeting Obamacare ... the legal battles could directly threaten or undermine the new system for many years.
In particular, the single-payer bill's ban on most private health insurance — a huge U.S. industry employing millions of people — would be an instant legal quagmire. And a host of other issues ... could easily produce another wave of lawsuits. ...
Medicare for All goes much further than the Affordable Care Act, which significantly expanded federal regulation of private insurance and has faced countless legal challenges since its enactment almost a decade ago. ...
Want national healthcare? VOTE DEMOCRAT to fix courts stacked with conservative political agents. Or expect to kiss it goodbye, perhaps sooner rather than later. With a 7-year creation and implementation period over 2 presidential terms, MfA might be destroyed, or sliced and diced into a corrupted shadow of itself, by Republicans in power and conservative courts before it ever paid for a single flu shot.
= new reply since forum marked as read
