One candidate opined that if the Democratic candidate supported Medicare For All, he or she would win only 2 states. I suspect that this is only a slight exaggeration.
3 of the top 4 candidates support plans where you would not be ALLOWED to keep you work-based medical plan, even after 10 years.
The GOAL of Medicare for All in fine, as long as each citizen has the CHOICE to keep his or her work-plan. If the government plan (state or federal) is good and cost-effective enough, eventually almost everyone would accept this plan. After all, the government would do all it could to move people to its plan.
Several observations, thoughts, and questions...
1.) Why would anyone want to pay extra in taxes for the Medicare Single Payer program AND a monthly premium for a private insurer?
2.) Those candidates, such as Rep. John Delaney, who are advocating for creating a public option to buy into are typically invested in the insurance companies.
3.) This approach weakens the reform. If people can opt out, states can opt out. And if they do, they will sabotage the reform, just like they did with the ACA. Remember, those states that participated in the ACA market exchanges saw monthly premiums drop dramatically. While those states who chose not to participate in the ACA market exchanges saw their premiums rise, basically making health insurance an unbearable cost on citizens and employers. They could do the same thing with the Expanded Medicare For All program, saddling their citizens with the high private monthly premiums AND a federal tax increase. Then blame it all on the President.
Single Payer can only work if everyone buys into it at once. The insurance companies want the "public option" approach to both stay in business a little longer and to have time to cause the plan to fail.
If one keeps their private plan they will still face the tax increase. This means they will be paying more than DOUBLE what was ever intended. The Single Payer program is designed to immediately eliminate the high monthly premiums being paid currently, and replace them with a marginal tax increase. For example... let's say that you're paying $600 a month for a private family plan right now. That monthly premium will go away, and your taxes will increase maybe $180 to $200 dollars. This means you'd save roughly $400 to $420 a month. That's an extra $400 in pocket every month. In addition to there being no co-pays or deductibles.
So, why would one even think about keeping their current plan?
And as previously stated, no matter how much one loves their private plan, they lose it if they lose their job or have to change jobs. What would one's current private plan have that Medicare for All wouldn't?
That's a better question if you ask me.