I'm confused as to why you all progressives only favor m4a or why you think there's only one m4a model.
probably because my brain has been rotted by exposure to twitter bernie bros who've spent the last year telling everyone that anything other the m4a is equivalent to murdering the poor.
Or why you think any m4a model proposed is "superficial and tiresome,"
i don't think m4a is superficial and tiresome i think the way american progressives (meaning rose twitter + sanders and warren as presidential candidates) talk about it is superficial and tiresome. i'm pretty agnostic on m4a.
you also think the current system is broken, and your only alternative is to go to a plan that already failed.
i don't agree that obamacare has failed - it has expanded access and i believe the evidence suggests that it has bent the cost curve a little bit. nonetheless, you are mistaken in assuming i think continuing with some form of obamacare is the only alternative or the most desirable alternative.
Your view on any m4a plan seems to be dripping with some unsaid agenda.
my "agenda" is mostly that i think the emphasis on health care policy over the course of the primary was generally stupid since it is abundantly obvious that there will not be the votes in congress to make any large scale changes during the next four years.
and then also that i dislike how people frame and discuss the issue, as mentioned above.
I'm not a m4a proponent, although I do favor a government takeover of the entire health care system.
i'm also more favorable about a govt run hc system (or partially govt run) than an m4a type arrangement, although i think that any discussion that doesn't start with an acknowledgment that countries around the world have wildly different systems and most of them work better than us hc does either is dishonest or reflects a viewpoint so ideologically fixated that i don't trust any diagnosis of us problems that might result.