You are not wrong. The "mixup" of what is left or right or statist or individualist is a major problem.
I encourage you to watch "Death of America" that just came out in theatres. Dinesh D'Souza film.
It opened up my eyes to some of the sources of the confusion.

"Everyone states they're for liberty".
Yes and other key words as well.
That is a problem for rational discussion.
We have to clearly state and define our terms if we are going to have any meaningful discussions with Bernie supporters.

"the MAGA folks at least have liberty as a fundamental stated value."
If they mean it, they're not the deplorables. Everyone states they're for liberty, even Sanders supporters. But then you dig deeper and they just enjoy the idea of hurting someone and/or blaming others for their problems.

They just need to get the doctors to all agree to work for free...or to pay to work. There you go! Problem solved! 8^D

Anything that is free, becomes too expensive to afford. That is why the health systems in Britain or Canada now limit what medical services you can get. You can die before you get medical help.

I have been on Medicare going on four years now, have part B with Humana. Can't tell you what it's like as I have never used it and won't unless I break or cut something beyond my ability to fix.

Medical is for the sick. If you're not sick then medicine can change that. Health is the responsibility of every person not the function of another.

Right on, free! Starvation and death is super cool!
Yeah, let's all vote for Bolshevik Bernie and that wonderful nutty newbie,Ocasilly-Cortez, who's wannabe clueless kinda commie too.
Heck, I do need to lose my Southern-fried weight, and we all gonna die some day anyhoo!
Anyhoo n' woo woo! So let's all hop aboard the socialist express and ride it all the way to hell, y'all!
All the way to hell! Yay!

That's had the same result every time in the past.
That's what they do in Venezuela now.
Let's vote for starvation and death.

For those who might be a little shaky on what socialism is:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/...

I have just unshrugged. 3.2 T per year in add'l Medicare would seal the deal for me. I would be neighbors with Dan Conway.

I also think $3.2 T is an underestimate.

A fine Medicare mess you have gotten us into Ollie - Stan Laurel

America 2040:
IDIOCRACY!

It's free! It's all free! Just print the money! Wheeee!
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Bwahahaha! It's all freeeee! Freeeeeee!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHt...

One of the best insurance plans today is totally “free” Medicaid. No wonder everyone wants it !

I don’t think Bernie is talking about Medicare. I think he wants Medicaid with no copays and drug costs. I am on Medicare now and pay $107 a month for that, plus $250 for “gap” insurance and another $40 a month for not very good drug coverage- about $400 a month. Medicare is going bk as it is. Imagine it with no copays free drugs vision and dental? Just not going to work

Thanks for the report from an actual user. All these kids advocating "medicare for all" have no idea of what they are selling.

Actually, I think the estimate is low. Right now the government spends $1.7T annually to support Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA (and that doesn't include the cost of active duty and retired military and their families). That budget supports 70 million patients. Our national population is five times that number, so the cost of Medicare for all could be as high as five times the $1.7T, or about $8.5T annually, which is more than twice the existing national budget.

Of course supporters of the "free" medical care argue that it will include many healthy young citizens, bringing down the cost. However, making anything free increases demand, even among those who don't currently need medical care. I witnessed this effect when I was working in Australia in the mid-1970s. The Labor government instituted "free" medical care, and were caught flat footed when the cost threatened to collapse the economy. Rather than cancel the expensive venture, the government tried to sneak a loan (deficit spending is unconstitutional in Australia), which resulted in the Governor General abolishing the Labor government and conducting new elections.

Vermont, home to Bernie Sanders, attempted single payer, and almost immediately cancelled it when the huge bills started rolling in. California conducted a study for Governor Brown to see if the state could afford single payer, and dropped the idea when estimates exceeded $400B/year. If you don't like my high estimate, just multiply the California number by 10, since that state has 10% of our national population, which results in "only" $4T a year (what a bargain!).

Exactly. Eventual infinite demand for a finite resource.

I am on Medicare at 72 years of age and it sucks. Cost containment is not paying the physicians enough to support their support staff (whose job it is to fill out forms to be compliant for payment). To have any coverage one must have part D to then get supplemental insurance to cover your a$$ when you are sick. I pay more now than when I was on regular insurance. I trace the whole medical mess back to the time when the IRS granted hospitals tax exempt status in exchange for providing for the poor. And look at the mess we are now in. Had medical care remained a for profit business competition would have controlled the costs plus provided a better delivery system. If Bernie is so in love with single payer how about he move to Canada and get in line for his medical problems. Same in any country with government controlled medical care. What a cluster f***.

the cost keeps going up and the service keeps going down. as alfred e newman said "what me worry" because there is nothing that can be done.

Don't forget that even the Obamacare estimates fell horribly short, just as Medicare and SS. I'd double that figure before I felt like it was close to being accurate - not that it is in my mind moral to support such.

If the estiate is correct (which I doubt) it translates to $3.2T per year. That is mnore than the current total budget. In order to support that as a zero sum game income to the federal gov't would need to double. Just imagine the tax bill then.If the "payer' distribution remains the same, the non-payers will have more disposable income than the Payers. A situation ripe for a "Shrug" if I ever say one.

At the extreme, I would agree they are pretty much the same in that they look to government officials to "lead" them.
However, the MAGA folks at least have liberty as a fundamental stated value. The Bernie's want to reward the victims and punish the productive until we are all equally poor, where pathetic means good and competent is bad.

The tumblers have been kicking in for a long time.

However, such studies are fundamental flawed to an Objectivist. We can't go by pie in the sky projections of what people will do. That Bernie's ideas are idiotic is the flaw, not what some small group of crystal ball readers dream up will happen.