More options. More competition. A better shot at carrying a democratic nominee across the finish line first than banning it.
All that matters is where the public appetite sits. This is an election not a TED talk with no consequences. Outside of beating Trump, Healthcare is the premier issue so I will argue for any democratic candidate who doesnt drop the ball on the issue and gamble away our chances on all of the lesser issues. Bernie and Warren have tried every angle to get people to back an insurance ban, on what grounds can one argue its the superior stance politically, as the quoted poster has argued.
As I said, I am not interested right now in arguing where the Overton window is. I think that is a concern, but you yourself are missing some critical pieces of input on calculating that.
More competition doesn't produce better consumer pricing or choice though. That's the paradoxical problem with for-profit insurance(and health insurance in general) and why Switzerland continues to struggle with costs compared to countries anchored around single-payer. The way insurers can actually provide lower consumer prices is through larger market share, because it better spreads risk, increases leverage over often stronger positioned hospitals and care specialists. But the slimmer administrative costs and maximal economies of scale of single-payer will always outperform a fractured, less market-leading private insurer(while providing total consumer choice). And as someone that worked on the administrative side for a major regional hospital, private insurers, even large ones, do far less in terms of negotiating than you could imagine.
And so frankly, I might actually be more inclined to give a pass to the Biden's, Harris's, and Klobucher's on this if they at least had a logically consistent ethos they were arguing from that wasn't poised for the same pitfalls as their predecessor who was actually far more savvy. But their position is equally if not more faulty long-term than the left-wing alternative. As there is not a world where a strong, well structured public option that can get us to UHC also preserves consumer private insurance choice. The only way you preserve that is by anchoring your system around that notion(Switzerland) or you implement a crippled public option that is insanely subsidized and much more expensive over the long haul than a major transition to single-payer.
Their pathway creates the exact same problem(and more) except they are locking themselves into the same set of lies that Obama caught himself up with. If the Overton window is so central to you, you should be equally mad at how poorly they are trying to argue within it.
So I am fine with the Overton window conversation, but if you don't think there are insanely, critically flawed issues with the moderate wings approach that will walk us right into the same problems we have now with the ACA, you are naiively mistaken.