Read my post again, I did mention that part. While you as an individual have a great situation, the vast majority of the country doesn't. If you want to vote for what is best for you individually vs what's best for the majority of the country that's your choice.
The fact is that Medicare for all would help most people save money and have quality health care without worrying about something important not being covered. There's a reason that even in South Carolina, where Bernie Sanders lost, the exit polls showed that about 70% of the voters were in favor of Medicare for all.
But that isn't the point of contention.
People like the idea of M4A and the GND. Less so for free college.
But Americans have sticker shock on all 3.
The large price tags raise taxes.
Americans have shown they don't agree with a large tax increase on the middle class.
It should be clear that the argument you all are making, while factually true, doesn't resonate well enough with voters.
That argument being that a it brings the overall cost down, therefore people are okay with tax increases.
I've long said that employees should be required to provide their employees with good insurance.
Liz's plan is an extension of that view that also calls for a wealth tax to offset the remaining costs.
At this point we should agree to disagree.