that nobody is proposing getting rid of and I quoted in my response "The first thing you do is bring in existing spending on Federal Health Programs and State Health Programs, the latter through a maintenance of effort requirement. That gets you $1.761 trillion. Then you can assume that Other Private ($0.308 trillion) remains the same, getting you to $2.069 trillion."

2 trillion times 10 years is 20 trillion, voila! This existing funding remaining is assumed in all the studies on this including Warren's: "From that $52 trillion figure, Warren’s team then fills in all the existing payments and taxes that the government already puts toward health care. Federal spending through Medicare taxes, as well as Medicare and Medicaid health spending financed by general taxes, comes to a little over $25 trillion over the ten-year period.

Then there’s another $6 trillion that reflects the state and local government share of spending for health programs like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and coverage for government employees. By using a “maintenance of effort” function that keeps those states paying the same amount for Medicare for All, that lowers the new revenues needed even further. Because overall health spending growth will reduce over time, states will end up spending less through this maintenance of effort provision than they would under current law.

After doing the math, Warren’s team projects that new government revenues necessary to finance Medicare for All would come to $20.5 trillion."

from https://prospect.org/health/warrens-medicare-for-all-plan-includes-no-new-taxes-on-the-middle-class/

>You also didn't even bother with my questions about why/how
>long he can even guarantee a 4% rate on taxpayers given the
>weaknesses in his M4A financing

That's just your presumptions, don't forget all the cost savings in M4A through reduced admin, economies of scale, buying power etc. You are also presuming that utilization rates will go way up and cost more etc. but that hasn't been the case in other countries (ie most of the entire planet) that have introduced some form of M4A or in America's past either https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-election-medicare-for-all/medicare-for-all-might-not-cause-surge-in-hospital-use-idUSKCN1UI2LI

>either way. So whatever risk there is in covering them via
>public option exists for covering them under single-payer too.

The most important part in Jayapal's statement was "game the system". The insurance industry is not stupid and they will do everything possible to keep their riches. For example with Warren's 3 year transition public option proposal nothing is stopping the insurance companies from financing great plans for 3 years and giving people everything they want so that people sour on the idea of M4A being better and then when we stop pursuing it they go back to the crap that they provide now making us have to start the process all over again. This is just one of a million possible scenarios.

>covering the bulk of their care. The uninsured are mostly
>people disenfranchised by their States' failures to expand
>Medicaid, self-employed folks, hardest-to-reach indigent folks
>(eg. homeless), etc.

Again you are forgetting about UNDER insured, a lot of people are covered but can't afford the copays and deductibles so they are essentially not covered.

>what isn’t.”The Wall Street Journal reports that new
>government health insurance systems like the public option
>represent “stepping stones to single payer.”"

The reason they are against even that is because they don't want to give an inch. The insurance industry fought the ACA too which helped enrich them. It is a barbaric system and in their perfect world it wouldn't change one iota. To counteract that level of evil you have to go at them full bore, no half measures, no middle ground. A moral society has to break the grip of people profiting off of other's sickeness, misery and death, it's beyond obvious.

>people too lol come on. Like OH NO NOT A DIRECTOR FROM THE
>INDIANAPOLIS COALITION FOR PATIENT SAFETY.

Don't be deliberately naive, Pete has 39 billionaire donors, https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-more-billionaire-donors-than-any-other-democratic-candidate-2019-11 Bernie has 0, every other candidate is just going to continue the status quo, if people are fine with that just admit it but change isn't coming from anyone else.

The bottom line is that all these arguments against M4A are ridiculous and anyone who isn't a lobbyist, or an insurance exec that gives weight to them is just on their side and helping stop progress. There is no other way around it, in the richest country in the world the only reason to not have M4A is to placate the insatiable greed of the oligarch class. As that Politico article stated their is unlimited money out there fighting against M4A and anyone who believes they are dong it because they are on our side and looking out for our interests is simply delusional.