> Source? This term was invented by Sarah Palin and was judged 2009’s Lie of the Year by PolitiFact.[1]

The lie (or at least misrepresentation) was that Obamacare had a "death panel clause" in it. An argument could be made that it still does:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/14/obamacare-d...

For the equivalent in the UK:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-28983924

> You have no idea what you’re taking about. There are 28 million uninsured Americans and millions more who are unable to afford treatment due to high deductibles.[2]

Your source doesn't actually say that. It only says 28.5 million Americans are uninsured for whatever reason. A high deductible implies low monthly premiums. To give the example of the NHS, it's 13% of your paycheck - you don't have the choice. If everybody was forced to buy insurance, premiums could be lower as well. Obamacare is just a "have your cake and eat it too" system that cannot work in the long run.

You "Medicare for all" proponents simply need to own up to the cost and not keep bullshitting about how some European country has better care at less cost and therefore the US could have the same. It's just not comparable. Several countries like Germany or Australia also have a public-private mix system. That option shouldn't be off the table either.

> For the equivalent in the UK:

> https://www.bbc.com/news/health-28983924

What do you think this means? How are you understanding this article? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Are you honestly saying US insurance companies don't do exactly the same thing?

When the government decides it isn’t worth it, you don’t have the option of paying for it anyway if you disagree. Hence the high-profile cases of parents with money, begging the government to be allowed to take their baby someplace else willing to treat him.

Insurance companies cannot prohibit you leaving the country.

> Insurance companies cannot prohibit you leaving the country.

Neither will developed-world single-payer systems, in virtually all cases. It sounds like you're referencing the Alfie Evans case, which a) was unusual enough to receive international headlines and b) involved a terminal, untreatable minor incapable of making their own decisions.

Hell, even in the UK, you can opt for private treatment - they've got a dual private/public system, as do many single-payer systems.

> you don’t have the option of paying for it anyway if you disagree.

Completely untrue in the UK. We have private healthcare alongside our NHS system. You can pay for it through insurance, or you can sell your house and pay for it in cash.

Hang on, are you talking about cases like Alfie Evans? Because that case had nothing to do with coat, and was entirely about what was in Alfie's best interests.

Doctors proposed a plan. The parents disagreed with that plan. The doctor's had to go to court to get permission to go ahead.

Contrast this with the US system. Doctors propose a plan and if the parents disagree it is them who have to go to court to stop the doctors.

> Are you honestly saying US insurance companies don't do exactly the same thing?

I certainly don't think it's "exactly the same", but that's not my point. I just wanted you to move the goalpost from "there are no death panels" to "okay, there are death panels, but they are everywhere, potato/patata!". Kinda like this guy:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/8/1660050/-Death-Pan...