It allows nonprofits to participate — the point is to remove the profit incentive to prevent entities from refusing coverage to stuff their coffers. Though, you needn’t worry about that passing any time soon. What is your solution?

Employer-sponsored plans cost businesses a lot; a public option would lower those costs, freeing funds for raises or benefits. Even if you keep private insurance, the competition would reduce premiums and prescription costs, improving affordability for all and more resources for your company.

A more cynical view is that it’s a trap — albeit one worth fighting. ABC would have won under Times v Sullivan — but, would this SCOTUS overturn it? If so, even a win for ABC would gut press freedom. Yet, by capitulating, ABC lets MAGA weaponize lawsuits to silence dissent — hence, the trap.

Single-payer refers to the financing, not the servicer of care. Most single-payer systems still allow private doctors and insurance; some even have nonprofit insurance with tiered care. The real issue is that the profit motive prioritizes profit over health. Fix that, and we fix care.

Agreed, it is maddening how free market absolutists ignore that health care is inelastic. Public service is better. Plus, more insurers = smaller risk pools, which undermine payouts. Add profit motives, and denial of care becomes the model.