set up like education where the GOVERNMENT ran clinics (like they run public schools) and you had a choice of showing up at a gov't run clinic for free or choosing a private clinic where YOU had to pay, I would agree that vouchers should not be provided for the private clinic. Under that public education like system, if you want gov't funding healthcare, go to the gov't run clinic (just like if you want gov't funded k-12 education, you go to the gov't run school). But no one is proposing gov't run clinics. They are proposing gov't reimbursement of PRIVATE clinics. Unlike public schools, there's no such thing as public clinics (not broadly/systematically speaking like schools... yes there are publicly funded clinics and hospitals). So why would we limit where someone could go. We don't do that with medicare right now. If you have medicare right now, you can go to a doctor that accepts medicare and requires nothing more (other than medicare defined co-pays). You can also go to a concierge doctor that accepts medicare, but also requires an annual fee. Why would we make medicare for all any different from medicare?

Yes it will create a healthcare system for the haves and have nots, but that's life. EVERYTHING in life is delineated that way except in the most socialist / communist countries (and then you just have different haves and have nots). I disagree it will FURTHER the divide. The haves won't be any better off (they already are able to use insurance AND pay a premium for concierge). The have nots will have better access to care. I'm not sure how doctors will be able to lower the premium they need to go concierge. When you go to a concierge physician now, you pay an annual fee and you (your insurer) still gets billed for doctors visits. How would this be any different?