it's shown not to be competitive price wise, or more concerning, simply adding to the problems of Medicare because we're not fully passing on the cost to those that want it. How do you move from there, to Medicaid for all? If that's the ultimate goal.

I call it Medicaid for all because that's what it is, particularly in Bernie's plan, that is funded strictly through the tax system, including not having any co-pays, deductibles, or premiums. I'm of the belief that people "like" Medicare, because as it exists right now, they are essentially subsidized by private insurance customers paying more. They still get the same level, quality, timeliness, etc of care as the higher payers, but at a reduced cost. Medicaid not so much. It is not liked in the same way because they are limited to just the providers that will accept them, so the quality, timeliness, etc. is not at the same level.

Once you go to a Medicaid for all, everyone is on the same playing field, there is no one subsidizing it anymore. (and/or creating a separate private system to make healthcare even more separated between the haves and the have nots) Thus when, not if, they control costs by reducing payouts to docs, providers, facilities, pharma, etc. we will not see the same level of service we see now, but rather more like what we see for Medicaid. I'm not saying that's not a trade off worth making in exchange for a reduction in healthcare costs, making sure everyone can have care, and not having anyone going bankrupt because they dared to get cancer, but it will not be the same level of care, timeliness and innovation we see now.