> [my comment] was not partisan, and was based on reality and cold economics rather than ideology

That's what all partisans think. Nonetheless you put needless scare quotes around Medicare for All, dismissed it as a "total fantasy", and, I guess, helpfully suggested I read a book by (literally!) the head of the Trump administration's FDA as a reference for "What Broke American Health Care".

If that was all done in good faith, then you're in an echo chamber and need to escape.

▲

nradov 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

Is there anything in that book that is factually incorrect, or are you going to stick with a lazy, low-effort dismissal? If you had actually read it you would know that it's refreshingly free of partisan ideology.

The quotes around "Medicare For All" were intended not to scare anyone but to identify a general set of policy proposals that have been floating around lately.

	▲	ajross 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Again, we're not having an argument about health care, and I'm not trying to dismiss the book you cited that pertains to the argument we're not having. I'm saying that book is clearly partisan, as is your argument. And I'm using that observation (which you keep reinforcing!) to justify my suspicion around the economic point you tried to make upthread (that, I guess, "hidden" health care "income" would increase labor's share if measured). It's 100% clear to me that the labor/income point is spin, and to be blunt I don't believe it for an instant.